REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO DISTURBANCE AND FIRE AT YARL'S WOOD

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the inquiry into the disturbance and fire at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre.— [Mr. Desmond Browne.]

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION INTO DISTURBANCE AT HARMONDSWORTH IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRE

Resolved,
	Than an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the investigation into the disturbances at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre on 19th and 20th July 2004.—[Mr. Desmond Browne.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Light Rail Schemes

Patsy Calton: What support his Department plans to give for light rail schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Darling: All bids for light rail schemes will be considered on the basis of their value for money, wider benefits, and affordability.

Patsy Calton: I agree that value for money should be a key part of any decision that the Secretary of State makes, but I remind him that the Metrolink in south-east Manchester was a key part of the multi-modal study proposals for that area approved by his Department. Does he plan to backtrack on any other proposal in that study?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady will understand that the Government must be satisfied that a scheme represents value for money before it can be agreed on. As she knows, the problem with the Metrolink scheme was that the costs nearly doubled in two years. What was being offered was less than what was originally proposed; two and a half lines as opposed to three. No Government could have approved the scheme without asking why the costs had risen so much. As it happens, my Department and the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive have been working closely since July to try to get to the bottom of some of those cost increases. Another meeting is due tomorrow, and I hope that progress can be made.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend will know that the Tyne and Wear Metro system continues to enjoy huge public support. It deserves to be improved and modernised to meet the transport needs of the 21st century. However, is he aware that, like other transport systems, it continues to be abused by the minority of people who are fare dodgers? When will he be in a position to announce his review of the maximum penalty fare, which I understand has been stuck at £10 since 1989?

Alistair Darling: I am well aware of the Tyne and Wear Metro—I visited it earlier this year—which has been very successful. I agree that, at today's prices, £10 for a penalty fare is a very small sum, especially as a person who dodges fares can save rather more than that very quickly. The Department has looked at this matter and I am strongly of the view that we need to increase the penalty fares. I hope to have something to say on this in the not too distant future.

Greg Knight: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Deputy Prime Minister does not get many things right, he was right to support the Greater Manchester Metrolink? Is not the obstacle to further progress the present team of Transport Ministers? Is he aware that one of the first decisions to be made next year by a Conservative Secretary of State for Transport will be to give the go-ahead to the Greater Manchester Metrolink extensions? When the right hon. Gentleman is sitting on the Opposition Benches, I hope that he will welcome that.

Alistair Darling: Never mind what might happen in the future; one of the issues facing the shadow transport team is how they can square what the right hon. Gentleman has just said with the fact that they are committed to cutting £1.8 billion from transport spending. There are problems of cost increases in the Manchester Metrolink and other light rail schemes and there are other transport problems in this country, but one thing is certain: arbitrarily to cut £1.8 billion from transport would lead to fewer transport schemes, not more.

Graham Stringer: I am less interested in a fantasy about a Conservative Government than I am in discovering whether my right hon. Friend agrees with his permanent secretary's assessment to the Public Accounts Committee, which reported last Wednesday that there was a 65 or 70 per cent. chance of the Metrolink schemes going ahead. Does he agree that it is important that the working party takes a decision on this matter very quickly? Only two bidders have been in the race for the Greater Manchester Metrolink scheme. If they walk away, no decision will have to be made.

Alistair Darling: I agree that we need to take a decision as soon as we can, but that decision must be the right one. I told the House in July that the Government could not accept a situation in which costs had increased very dramatically, yet we were being offered fewer light-rail facilities than had been the case before. No Government could accept that in Manchester or in any other part of the country. We have to understand why costs went up, and a lot of progress has been made in that respect. We must then decide what is the best solution for Manchester, and for those other places with tram schemes.
	I want to be very clear about this. Very constructive discussions have taken place between the Greater Manchester PTE and my Department over the past few weeks. As I said a moment ago, another meeting is due tomorrow, but our approach must be based on the need to get the right solution. If we do not achieve that, the costs will have to be met by council tax payers in the Greater Manchester area as well as by central Government. All of us owe it to those people to make sure that we get the right solution. We should not rush into something that could unravel very quickly.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituents for the role that the Minister of State, Department for Transport has played in the working party? Does he also accept, though, that as far as my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), are concerned, the only right decision is to go ahead, which is hardly rushing things after 13 years? Does he also accept that "value for money" has to take into consideration investment from other Departments, which will be appreciably less if the answer is not yes?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be very pleased to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about him. He has done a great deal to make sure that the talks are constructive.
	At the risk of repeating myself, may I say that the Manchester metro has been very successful and the Government are well disposed towards it? However, we are also concerned about the rising cost of the scheme, as my hon. Friend should be; if it goes wrong, the people who will pay for it are, among others, council tax payers in the Greater Manchester area. That is why it is so important that we ensure that the costings and forecasts on which the scheme is being constructed are right, while making sure that the scheme is viable and affordable in future. That work continues, and there will be another meeting tomorrow, which I hope all sides will approach constructively, because there is a solution.
	The one thing I am clear about, having delved into the figures, is that if we had nodded things through in July without asking questions, things might have been all right for a few months but the trouble would then have become apparent. No responsible Secretary of State could agree to that.

South Eastern Trains

John McDonnell: What representations he has received requesting that South Eastern trains be kept in the public sector.

Alistair Darling: I have received a number of representations from the RMT campaign and a number of letters from hon. Members and their constituents.

John McDonnell: I wonder whether I can refresh the Secretary of State's memory. I believe that he has received representations urging him not to re-privatise the service from the TUC, the railway unions, the overwhelming majority of the public, the Select Committee on Transport, and 100 colleagues from the Labour Benches who signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). People are perplexed as to why the Government—in opposition to Labour party conference policy—are seeking to re-privatise the service. Will he receive a delegation of colleagues to discuss that as a matter of urgency?

Alistair Darling: It does not sound to me as if my hon. Friend would change his mind even if he came to see me, or any of my colleagues. The Government set out our proposals on the railways in the White Paper, published in July. Our view was that we needed to take greater strategic control of the railways and to make Network Rail responsible for day to day operations, while train operating companies should continue, albeit on a slightly different basis, to be responsible for running train services. When I look at relative performance and the costs of South Eastern Trains, which has been run by the Strategic Rail Authority over the past 18 months or so, I am bound to say, as I have told my hon. Friend before, that it is not immediately obvious to me that things are materially better under the SRA than in comparable franchises in the south-east. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I am not particularly attracted to what he advocates. It is more important to make sure that we get the best solution for people who travel on South Eastern Trains, as well as the best solution for the railways overall.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer, but disappointed that he did not say that he is willing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to discuss the future of South Eastern Trains. If we are to get value for money for taxpayers' investment in our railways, it surely follows that we must have a public sector comparator, and not just the dogma of privatisation of our railways. If South Eastern Trains has shown an improvement in certain areas in the short time in which it has run rail services in the south-east, particularly on main line services, we must surely consider the future of the railways under that management. May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider a meeting to discuss that further?

Alistair Darling: The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), tells me that he has offered a meeting to my hon. Friend, if he would like to take that up. The performance of South Eastern Trains is not as good as the average for the south-east as a whole. My hon. Friend is right that there has been an improvement, but that is largely due to what Network Rail has done in reducing track delays. South Eastern Trains, and some others, have had problems with new rolling stock. We have had the experience of that franchise for some 18 months, which, obviously, is one of the things that we would compare with any bid that might come in from another company. I am not interested in dogma; I am interested in ensuring that we have a decent service for people using trains, which is something that they have been denied for rather too long. That is why I want to get it right, and I assure my hon. Friend that dogma has nothing to do with it.

Intercity Trains

Julie Morgan: If he will take steps to encourage Intercity trains to provide services late into the evening.

Tony McNulty: Train operating companies must provide a minimum level of service, usually including late trains, as prescribed by their franchise agreements. Services beyond those minimum levels are provided at operators' discretion on a commercial basis.

Julie Morgan: What can my hon. Friend do to encourage First Great Western to put on more late night trains from Cardiff to London Paddington? Is he aware that the last direct train is at 9.28 pm in the week and 7.25 pm on a Saturday? Next week, the Wales millennium arts centre opens in Cardiff, which will mean that people from London will flock to Cardiff. They will need to be able to return late at night.

Tony McNulty: I am aware that the last train to Cardiff is at ten past 10 and the last one from Cardiff is at about half past 9. My hon. Friend will know that the First Great Western franchise will be let in 2006. Part of the process of letting that franchise is extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders, taking into account factors such as the dynamic development that she refers to in Cardiff city centre. I am sure that all such elements will be fed into the consultation process.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that after a successful campaign by parliamentarians on both sides, GNER has responded with a very good late night service on the east coast line? Will he be wary of anything with "First" in the title, such as FirstBus, which would be a great threat to that line? That company cannot run buses in west Yorkshire and many of us are very worried that GNER will lose the franchise to that bunch of cowboys.

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that we are in the middle of letting the new tender for the east coast main line; therefore, it would not be useful if I commented on potential tenderers or on his comments on any bus company.

Bill O'Brien: Whoever receives the franchise for the east coast main line, will there be a guarantee that the services for my constituents and others in the Yorkshire and Humber region will not decline and that we will retain the efficient service that we have at present, as provided by GNER? When the franchise is let, will my hon. Friend ensure that the service to which we are entitled will continue or improve?

Tony McNulty: I know that the service that has been provided thus far is cherished and loved by any number of Members of Parliament. We are not seeking, through the new franchise, any diminution of that service.

Rail Freight

Dave Watts: If he will make a statement on the future of rail freight.

Tony McNulty: Rail freight in the UK is a growing business. Tonne miles of freight moved have increased by 42 per cent. since privatisation, and rail freight has also increased its market share. In October, a fifth freight operating company entered the market. The Government will provide more than £20 million per year in grants to the rail freight industry over the next two years, and we published in the recent railways White Paper our clear proposals to provide greater certainty and stability for the industry.

Dave Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that more freight could be transferred to rail if there were a better rail infrastructure? Will he assure me that he will do all he can to help to develop such facilities in places such as the north-west, especially in St. Helens?

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that any number of applications are pending for freight termini—I think that is the term—in the north-west, on which I certainly cannot comment. In the railways White Paper, the Government laid out clear support for rail freight in three ways: through infrastructure, as my hon. Friend suggests, and capacity; through freight grants, to which I have alluded; and, crucially, through securing certainty of affordable access for freight paths.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that a central objective of the Government's transport plan, published in 2000, was to increase rail freight by 80 per cent. by 2010. The figures I have before me suggest that since 2000 progress has been erratic, with an increase one year, a decrease in the next and so on. Will he give an assurance that there will be an 80 per cent. increase by 2010 and, if so, would not it be wise to have stepping stones so that we can understand what progress is actually being made?

Tony McNulty: As I said, we made it absolutely clear in the rail White Paper that we are committed to rail freight and that we will, in the ways I outlined, secure a greater future for rail. If progress on rail freight since 1997 could be described as erratic, which I dispute, prior to that it was positively sclerotic.

David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend have any evidence to suggest that delays on the west coast main line are having an adverse effect on Anglo-Scottish rail freight movements and, if so, when does he expect such delays to come to an end?

Tony McNulty: During some previous works on the west coast main line, there certainly was some delay and disruption to freight movements to and from Scotland. As with passenger services, the more we get away from the works needed to improve the west coast main line—again, something positively untouched by the previous Government—the more such disruption will be a thing of the past, and we shall ensure that that remains the case.

Christopher Chope: Why did not the Minister tell us that, in 1997, a total of 105 million tonnes of freight was lifted, but that last year the amount was only 89 million tonnes? In other words, there has been a decline of 15 per cent. over the lifetime of the Government. Why are the Government now intent on pursuing a policy of forcing up the price of rail freight to suppress demand? That is the Government's policy; why does not the Minister come clean about it?

Tony McNulty: As ever, both the hon. Gentleman's data and his analysis are so wide of the mark as to be, again, positively sclerotic.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend will know that large-gauge dedicated rail freight routes that are capable of taking lorries and lorry trailers on trains are being developed across the continent of Europe, and that substantially greater volumes of rail freight are carried there than in Britain. Is not it time for the Government to take the lead in building a dedicated rail freight route in Britain, linking all the UK's major industrial areas from Scotland to the channel tunnel and the continental economies beyond?

Tony McNulty: If such proposals are forthcoming, we shall of course look at them. I am grateful that my hon. Friend managed to catch your eye on this question, Mr. Speaker, because his recent characterisation of the rail freight industry as somehow in crisis is 100 per cent., absolutely, stone wrong.

Road Transport Emissions

Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on carbon dioxide emissions from road transport.

David Jamieson: Road transport is responsible for about 20 per cent. of the UK's total carbon dioxide emissions. We have already introduced a comprehensive range of measures to reduce the impact of transport on the environment. We will consider the scope for further measures as part of the review of the climate change programme.

Norman Lamb: The Government have clearly stated their commitment to tackling climate change, yet total greenhouse gas emissions from all forms of road transport increased by about 13 per cent. between 1990 and 2002. The development of biofuels could make a significant impact on the Department's problem, so will the Minister and the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to take decisive action in the pre-Budget report this autumn to kick-start the industry? There is great frustration that nothing effective is happening to get things going.

David Jamieson: It is true that, since 1990, emissions of carbon dioxide from transport have risen by 10 per cent., but traffic has increased by 24 per cent., which is a measure of our successful economy under this Government. The hon. Gentleman mentions biofuels, which do have the potential to reduce CO 2 from transport. But we must ensure that we get a benefit for UK agriculture and do not take action that sucks in imports, and we must ensure security of supply by getting biofuels provided from this country. The hon. Gentleman knows that we consulted on the way forward on this issue earlier this year and we are looking very closely at the results. Already, as he knows, we have reduced the tax on biodiesel to 20p per litre, and on 1 January the tax on bioethanol will also be reduced to 20p per litre. That is some of the progress that we are making and further announcements will be made shortly.

Brian Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of emissions and the number of freight journeys, particularly by road, is closely related to ports policy? Will he recognise that more than two thirds of the freight that enters through south of England ports ends up north of Birmingham? Does he accept that ports policy is far too important to be left to the market or to a series of random public planning inquiries, and that there is an essential need for a major port in the north, preferably at Hunterston, which would act as a container hub and would reduce substantially the number of road freight journeys within the crowded south of England?

David Jamieson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting the subject of ports in Scotland into a question on carbon dioxide emissions from road transport. He is quite right to say that, where possible, we should be moving particularly heavy loads by water rather than road; that is certainly an issue that we take into consideration in our ports policy. We await an application from the port in Scotland that he mentioned, and the issues that he has raised will be considered when we consider further developments.

John Thurso: Does the Minister agree that congestion is a major contributor to carbon emissions? The feasibility study that his Department published in July on national road price charging indicates that a 4 per cent. reduction in traffic could reduce congestion by as much as 45 per cent., and could address the blatant injustice of remote rural motorists paying considerably more for their motoring, where there is no congestion, than urban motorists do where there is congestion. What are the Government doing to promote national road price charging, which would give us fair tax instead of fuel tax?

David Jamieson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his latest cliché. As he knows, the Secretary of State launched a feasibility study earlier this year and we are looking very closely at the issue. We are looking for a debate and I hope that we can find some cross-party accord on an important issue. As the hon. Gentleman says, reducing congestion, whether on local or main trunk roads, could reduce substantially carbon dioxide and other noxious emissions from transport. But, as he knows, the technology to introduce road pricing is a long way from being in place. Over the next 10 to 15 years we need to develop that technology and develop the policies that could bring us those benefits. I had a glance at the document, "A Better Environment, A Better Life—Liberal Democrat Policies for the Environment". I did not see any mention of road pricing, but I am sure that he will put that right shortly.

Andy Reed: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's acknowledgment of the role of things like biofuels. Does he also accept that fuel cell technology and biofuels will play a great role? Unfortunately, at the moment these are not available on a wide enough scale to enable us to reach the tipping point at which that role becomes a reality for many British motorists right across the UK. Rather than spending the next few months just looking at further reports on what can be done, will my hon. Friend apply pressure on the Chancellor before it is too late to ensure that we get to the point where we make biofuels, fuel cell technology and all the technological advances that would make an enormous difference to the entirety of this problem, particularly carbon dioxide emissions?

David Jamieson: I know of the enormous amount of work that my hon. Friend has done on this issue and how important the growth of biofuels would be to his constituents and, possibly, to UK agriculture, but he must accept that we must make progress carefully; if we set very high targets for the use of biofuels, it could suck in imported biofuels, which, of course, may not be produced from sustainable sources. We have to balance it very carefully. However, the fuel duty rebates that we have already applied to biofuels have considerably increased the amount of biofuel available at the pumps, and it is now available at 100 filling stations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard what my hon. Friend says and will take the issue forwards in his next statement on this matter.

Tim Yeo: Does the Minister agree that to cut carbon dioxide emissions from road transport, it is not necessary to force motorists off the road, as the Deputy Prime Minister tried to do and as the Liberal Democrats apparently now wish to do? The same aim can be achieved by a switch to environmentally friendly cars. Does the Minister accept that far more use could be made of the tax system—his last answer on the matter was very disappointing—to encourage the purchase and use of greener vehicles so that motorists can continue to enjoy the freedom to drive, which has enhanced the lives of millions of people?

David Jamieson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been in recent years, but we are doing a great deal with fiscal measures to encourage cleaner, greener vehicles. Under this Government, vehicle excise duty now relates to the carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles and the company tax car regime introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has encouraged the take-up of cleaner, greener vehicles. We have seen a growth in the use of diesel vehicles that produce less CO 2 . The European voluntary agreement has brought about much cleaner engines in vehicles. We have our "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy, and we have brought the industry together to discuss these matters. We are doing a great deal, and we will continue to do so, and we look to the hon. Gentleman for his support.

Transport (Nottingham)

Graham Allen: What recent discussions he has had with Nottingham city council on transport issues in the city.

Charlotte Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport met Nottingham city council when he launched the Nottingham express transit system on 8 March 2004. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport also met members of the council during a visit to the city on 6 September this year.

Graham Allen: I hope that the Minister herself will come to Nottingham and take the brand new tram system from Nottingham station. I shall meet her in my constituency with a tandem to take her back to town along the new cycleway and walkway along the River Leen. I hope that we will be able to talk about the pedestrianisation and the workplace parking scheme that the city of Nottingham is discussing. But before that happy day, will she commend the intelligent and innovative work that is taking place throughout the city of Nottingham on transport matters?

Dennis Skinner: Give me your answer do. [Laughter.]

Charlotte Atkins: I should be delighted to visit Nottingham, North and, indeed, to get on a tandem, so long as I am in the driving seat, and, of course, to use the tram. First-year patronage is likely to be just over 8 million passengers—a considerable success—so congratulations to all involved. Their dedication and hard work have secured the success of that ambitious project, and I am sure that it will make a real difference to the people of Nottingham.

Edward Garnier: When the Minister takes up the invitation from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to go to Nottingham to discuss transport issues with the city council—[Interruption.] I am being anticipated. Will she ensure that she discusses with the city council the expansion of night flights from Nottingham East Midlands airport? One of the things that concerns me and will no doubt concern the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the maps that are being used to persuade the people of the Nottingham area about the good sense of the airport's proposals are inaccurate and do not properly display the flight path. A further matter that she should discuss with them is the expulsion of aviation fuel from the aircraft that use Nottingham airport, which may be causing dairy cattle to become sterile as a result of their ingesting the expelled fuel. [Hon. Members: "Come on!"] This is a matter of huge environmental importance not just to the people of the city of Nottingham, but to those who live in the surrounding area. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The question was in good order.

Charlotte Atkins: The airport is clearly not in Nottingham, but this is an issue for the airports authority. I will certainly take the issue up with the authority, but it is not a matter for me or the Secretary of State. It is not a designated airport.

Noise Disturbance (Plas Derwen)

Huw Edwards: If he will meet the chief executive of Network Rail to discuss noise disturbance to residents of Plas Derwen, Abergavenny, from the nearby railway maintenance plant.

Tony McNulty: Under the terms of its network licence enforced by the independent Office of Rail Regulation, Network Rail is obliged to secure the efficient and economical stewardship of the network in accordance with best practice. The operation and development of facilities at Abergavenny sidings is an operational matter for Network Rail, and I understand that it has offered to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further. I wish him well with that meeting.

Huw Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When he meets Network Rail's chief executive, will he tell him that my constituents find the noise of the double tamper locomotives sited at Abergavenny unbearable through the night? They feel that the guidelines, which were agreed with Carillion and other contractors, are not being followed and that the plant could be better sited at Pontypool. Will my hon. Friend ask Network Rail to look into the issue and ask that its chief executive meet me, because I have repeatedly asked to meet him?

Tony McNulty: As I understand it, Network Rail notifies local residents and the environmental health officer at Monmouthshire county council in advance whenever night work is planned at Abergavenny sidings. Network Rail endeavours to implement measures to mitigate the effect of its operations. In the first instance, I suggest that my hon. Friend meet the Network Rail regional manager, who has offered to meet him. I will be happy to receive a response from my hon. Friend about the success or otherwise of that meeting. Then we might take matters further.

Railways

Norman Baker: What projection he has made of a change in passenger rail journeys between now and 2015.

Alistair Darling: The Strategic Rail Authority in its strategic plan that was published in 2003 forecast an increase in rail passenger mileage from 2001–02 to 2010–11 of between 25 and 35 per cent. Last year the railways carried more then 1 billion passengers—the highest total since 1961.

Norman Baker: It is welcome to see a projected increase in rail usage, but is the Secretary of State convinced that the present network can cope? The route utilisation strategies are welcome and will buy perhaps five years' extra usage on the railways for increased numbers, but is there a medium-term strategy to increase capacity on the network, or are we going to be driven back to the old British Rail policy of pricing people off the trains?

Alistair Darling: We are increasing capacity. For example, the upgrade of the west coast main line, which is about halfway through, is substantially increasing capacity and, every year, improvements are being made to the lines to allow more trains to run. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will do whatever we can. Obviously, in the longer term, there will be some quite big decisions for Governments to face up to, both in terms of what we need in the network and, equally important, how we are going to pay for it.

Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a problem with increasing the passenger capacity is the number of freight slots that are allocated and that get in the way of increased passenger slots? Does he also accept that the new high-box containers mean that more slots are required for the same number of freight movements? Has his Department investigated this problem, particularly as it relates to passenger movements and the ease of freight traffic? Has he in mind any measures that might alleviate it?

Alistair Darling: We are both aware of the problem, and we have looked at how we might sort it out. I shall say a word about Southampton in a moment, but for example, a few weeks ago, the line between Felixstowe harbour and central England was upgraded to allow the carriage of bigger freight loads. That was quite a significant investment and it improves access to the rest of the freight network.
	I am aware that there is a particular problem in relation to Southampton docks. I had recent discussions with one of the freight operating companies as to a possible way round that. We obviously want to make sure that rail access to our ports is as efficient and as effective as possible. Wherever possible, it is best to move goods over long distances by rail if we can. I know that there is a particular problem in Southampton, and I hope that we can find a way of sorting it out.

Tim Yeo: It is good news that more people are travelling by train. That trend has clearly been encouraged by the increased investment in railways that followed privatisation. Does the Secretary of State, however, accept that further increases in passenger numbers will be helped if the privately owned train operators are free to respond to consumer demand, but would be hindered if bureaucrats from Network Rail and the Department for Transport or, even worse, the Mayor of London, were given more say over where and when rail services are run?

Alistair Darling: I see the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour. The increased investment over the past seven or eight years has happened largely because the Government have been prepared to spend more on the railways. I remind him that he has a commitment—no doubt foisted on him by the shadow Chancellor—to cut spending by £1.8 billion. He cannot say that he will increase investment and improve the railways, yet cut the amount available for that. That does not add up, and the Tories' transport policy will remain incredible until the hon. Gentleman sorts that out. I remind him that much of the long-term decline of the railways occurred during the terms of Conservative Governments.

Jonathan R Shaw: The number of passengers in the Medway towns has grown and will continue to grow as the Thames gateway development comes forward. We welcome the £200 million investment in the new bullet trains that will come on stream in 2009. However, my right hon. Friend will know that there is concern that the new timetable running from 2006 that will be announced shortly will show that there will be a reduction in services before the new Eurostar bullet trains come on stream. Does he understand that concern? Can he indicate whether he has listened to our arguments and tell us that there will not be a reduction in services, but replacement train services, for which we have called for several years?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome to the new high-speed domestic services. People in Kent have wanted them for a long time, and although many people doubted that the development would happen, it will. The trains will provide high-speed services from parts of Kent to London St. Pancras. However, my hon. Friend will accept that if we are to provide such services, we must ensure that the existing service pattern is compatible with new services so that the lines do not become over-congested, which would lead to delays building up. The SRA has consulted on those matters and is trying to reconcile the many competing demands. It will publish its conclusions when the invitation to tender for the new franchise goes out. My hon. Friend will have to wait a little longer, although I am reasonably confident that we can probably put the invitation to tender out in the middle of December.

David Heath: Is there anything that the Secretary of State can do to prevent the asset-stripping of land from railway stations? Frome is the largest town in the country to have a mainline station at which the trains do not stop, but the railway authorities are planning to sell and redevelop the land that was its old goods yard, which is critical to the future development of Frome's passenger rail services. Is that a sensible plan for proper integrated transport use in the future?

Alistair Darling: I am not aware of the specific proposal, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I shall certainly look at it. The general principle is that Network Rail is encouraged to get rid of land that it does not need because that realises money that can be reinvested in the network. We can all think of countless stations with lines and goods yards that have lain unused for years. If such land could be sold off with the money put into the network, so much the better. I am not sure how imminent the development to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, but I shall certainly examine it, although he must bear in mind the fact that that does not mean that I am making a commitment to do something different from what is proposed.

David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the effects on passenger rail travel of the new autumn timetables.

Alistair Darling: Some changes to the timetables were made on 27 September, especially to those of the operators affected by the implementation of the west coast route project, to enable the first benefits of the upgrade to be realised.

David Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that since the new timetable commenced, rail passengers at Stafford now have fewer inter-city London trains, fewer cross-country trains and inadequate services to Birmingham and Liverpool? Although there used to be three peak-time morning trains from Penkridge to Birmingham, there are now only two, so most passengers have to stand. Is that experience common throughout the country, or have those passengers been singled out for such harsh treatment? Will my right hon. Friend call on the rail companies to make urgent improvements for those passengers?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be aware that over the past two or three years, with the imminent arrival of high-speed trains running on the west coast line, the SRA tried to reconcile that with what was required for local services. It is probably fair to say that although some people were happy with the outcome, others were not. Inevitably, when a service is reduced some people are unhappy about it. We are trying to ensure that we make the best possible use of the new upgraded line. Some trade-offs need to be made. If there is a particular problem, I shall certainly ask the train operating companies to look at it.
	We do have a problem with the temporary bus service that runs between Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent. I am not sure whether that troubles my hon. Friend, but it should be resolved next year. It is due to a temporary shortage of drivers on Central Trains. I certainly undertake to consider any other issues.

Michael Fabricant: Is the Secretary of State aware that the autumn timetable is in disarray, because it seems that the tilting Pendolino trains are forbidden to run at 125 mph as anticipated because the braking systems do not work properly? They are being restricted to 110 mph, which means that the autumn timetable will not run on time. Will he investigate with Virgin Trains how long that will last and how the problem arose in the first place?

Alistair Darling: I have already done that. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the trains have been able to run at 125 mph since this morning. [Hon. Members: "Hurrah!"] However, let me get my retaliation in first for Question Time on 21 December. I know what happened. Modifications were carried out to the braking systems. That type of train has not hitherto run on Britain's railways and inevitably when new rolling stock is introduced problems need to be sorted out. Sadly, the Pendolino trains have had more teething problems than we would like. As of this morning, however, they are supposed to be running at up to 125 mph, though I am bound to say that the one I travelled in last week with the driver was not one of them.

Bob Blizzard: I welcome the new timetable for One West Anglia services which comes into effect in my constituency in December. It will mean that for the first time since the days of Dr. Beeching, Lowestoft and Beccles have a direct service to and from London. That has happened because the Government combined three franchises into one, so beginning the process of repairing the damaging fragmentation introduced by the Conservatives in the botched rail privatisation. May I invite my right hon. Friend to try out the new service?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight what happens when the railways are broken up and it is left to chance to see whether services run. We are rightly in the process of reducing the number of franchises. The service in East Anglia is much better than it was, although one or two difficulties still need to be sorted out. As a result of the amalgamation of the new service, we can run more trains and improve reliability. That is precisely what the Government intend to continue to do, all backed up by investment that would be cut if the Conservatives ever got back into office.

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Health and Safety Executive to discuss the Potters Bar rail accident.

Tony McNulty: The Secretary of State expects to meet representatives of the HSE shortly to hear the conclusions of its investigation into the Potters Bar rail crash.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful for that reply, but with all the emphasis on the recent tragic First Great Western train disaster near Newbury, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the equally tragic Potters Bar disaster is not forgotten? Are the lessons from that disaster going to be learned? Why did he not set up a public inquiry into that disaster?

Tony McNulty: The lessons certainly have been learned. The HSE expected to complete its investigation in early November. It has been trying to locate the last witness which, through no fault of its own, it has not been possible to do. So the whole timetable has been shunted on. However, the Secretary of State still anticipates meeting the HSE to discuss its report in early December. Any decision on a public inquiry is predicated on my right hon. Friend's discussions on the outcome of the HSE's investigation.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister raise with the HSE the fact that, this year alone, eight track workers have been killed—an unwelcome and unnecessary increase? Will he direct the HSE to inquire into what responsibility the fragmentation among maintenance companies bears for the deaths?

Tony McNulty: Each and every one of the tragic incidents has been raised with the HSE and all are the subject of separate inquiries. However, my hon. Friend is right: we need to learn lessons from each and every incident and to ensure that deaths of railway workers on track diminish as much as all other deaths on our railway network.

James Clappison: I understand that the bereaved families appreciated their meeting with the Secretary of State, but is it not deeply unsatisfactory that they and the travelling public have had to wait more than two and half years for a decision on a public inquiry and that Network Rail has refused to pay anything more than a very small amount of compensation to five of the seven bereaved families, including the family of my late constituent, Agnes Quinlevan? Is it not time that Network Rail recognised the value of the lives lost?

Tony McNulty: As I said, any decision on a public inquiry is predicated on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's receiving the HSE's report, then determining which direction to take. The hon. Gentleman knows that the HSE has written to the bereaved, the injured and their representatives to inform them of the revised timetable and of the fact that, through no fault of the HSE, it has been unable to stick to the original timetable of which they were notified.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

E-government

Mark Tami: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to improve access for disadvantaged groups to the electronic delivery of Government services.

Ruth Kelly: The new Directgov site is the main access point for the electronic delivery of government services. It draws together a comprehensive range of information and services from the whole of government, making it easier for all people to access. We have also recently implemented a new government service within Directgov that focuses on the needs of disadvantaged groups. It has been very well received and is being expanded for the future.

Mark Tami: Although we are taking some positive steps forward, does my hon. Friend accept that many people from disadvantaged groups and areas do not have direct access to the internet and are not aware of which services are available? What is she doing to tackle that problem and to promote the service?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to educate people about the use of the internet and what services are available, so we have to start in the classroom. One of the things that the Government have done since 1997 is ensure that every school and every public library is connected to the internet. We have also opened 6,000 UK Online centres to make it as easy as possible for disadvantaged groups to access the internet. However, some people will never feel comfortable with the internet, so we are examining other channels, such as interactive television and mobile phones, for the delivery of e-government services.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that e-delivery for disadvantaged groups and others in North Yorkshire is in disarray because the very person who was to educate people in how to access the system is no longer in his position?

Ruth Kelly: I cannot comment on the situation in North Yorkshire, although I am happy to look into it, but I can tell the hon. Lady that 95 per cent. of the population is now within 5 km of a UK Online centre and that we are working with the centres to make them as accessible as possible to disadvantaged groups. That work includes the "get started" campaign, whereby UK Online centres are opened up to disadvantaged groups.

Rob Marris: My friend Mark Campbell of Wolverhampton has been blind since birth. He is an educated man, but it will cost him £2,500 to get the software he needs to access the internet. Is there any help available for people such as him?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of making services as accessible as possible to disadvantaged groups, especially the visually impaired. We have been working with the Directgov service to make it as accessible as we can, and as of last month all new .gov domain names have to be compatible with worldwide accessibility guidelines. About half of all public sector or government websites are now accessible and meet those guidelines—a much larger proportion than in the private sector, where about one in five websites are. None the less, we clearly have a long way to go.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Policy Directorate

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many hours on average he has spent per week on his responsibilities for the policy directorate.

Alan Milburn: In my role as a Cabinet Minister, I divide my time between my various duties. I am responsible to Her Majesty the Queen on Duchy business. As a member of the Cabinet, I sit on 17 Cabinet Committees. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I will list them if hon. Members are interested.
	As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I have a cross-Government role in the co-ordination of Government policy. I therefore have a wide range of official meetings, including meetings with Cabinet colleagues. In addition to that, I am responsible for the work of the strategy unit and, of course, the policy directorate inside No. 10 Downing street.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister will be aware that everybody believes that his role is to organise the Labour party's general election campaign. Perhaps he should have another chance at answering my question and tell me how many hours he actually does.

Alan Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, it has not been unusual either in this Government or in previous Conservative Governments for the holder of this office, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on some occasions to have other ministerial responsibilities. Some have had ministerial responsibilities other than Duchy business and some have not. In some cases they have combined Duchy business with political business. That is not unusual.
	If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave earlier, he would understand what my range of governmental responsibilities are. I suspect that he did not listen to what I had to say because he was too busy reading the briefing that he has received from the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench. He has a copy of that briefing and so have I. It reads: "Dear colleagues", and it is signed "Yours ever, Julian". It says:
	"Thank you to the 30 colleagues who responded positively to my e-mail about putting down an OPQ to Milburn for answer on Tuesday, 16 November at 12:20."
	I like a man who is punctual.
	"There is a real"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chancellor of the Duchy has made the point.

Hilton Dawson: The city of Lancaster is eagerly awaiting the visit of the new Chancellor of the Duchy on 9 December. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and all my constituents that he will take every opportunity to avail himself of the splendid new developments at Lancaster university, the regeneration of run-down derelict sites in Lancaster, the revitalisation of the rural community and the huge investment that has taken place in public services across the Lancaster and Wyre constituency during the short time of his visit?

Alan Milburn: I am of course looking forward to joining my hon. Friend on my visit to the fine city of Lancaster. As he knows, I am a graduate of the university of Lancaster. I will be meeting people from Lancaster university. I will also be meeting representatives of the Duchy and tenants of the Duchy. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend too.

Julian Lewis: I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Duchy has concluded his sixth minute at the Dispatch Box since his appointment in September. With such a record, it is hardly surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister got him mixed up with the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), and not in very complimentary terms either.
	Is the Chancellor aware that ministerial guidelines state that answers to questions from parliamentarians should be as full as possible unless it is not in the public interest to reveal the details? Why has the right hon. Gentleman consistently pursued a policy of evasion when asked how he spends his time, how he is having his engagements organised and how much his office costs? Is it because the list is so lengthy or is it because it is so—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only a few minutes left.

Alan Milburn: It has never been standard practice to release detailed information about Ministers' diaries, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. It is true that he has asked me many questions since I came to office—I think that he has asked 35 since 11 October, 16 of which relate to my responsibilities. I noted the absence, however, of questions on the lips of his constituents about crime, jobs, health, education, child care and pensions. Frankly, the reason why he does not ask about those issues is that he, just like the Conservative party in general, has precisely nothing to say about them.

Matthew Taylor: While it is true that holders of the Minister's office have often combined their role with political duties, on many occasions they have not been paid by the taxpayer for that work, but by their political party, which makes more sense. Given that the Minister will undertake extensive duties for his party during the general election and that running the Labour campaign will undoubtedly be more than full-time work, can he assure the House that he will not take a ministerial salary during that period?

Alan Milburn: Perhaps because of the naivety of the Liberal Democrats and the fact that they have not been in office for many years—and hopefully, for many years to come—it may have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Ministers, just like Labour Ministers, have combined two roles—a role in government, which I carry out, and a role for their party.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

E-government

Andrew Miller: What steps are being taken to ensure that Government (a) websites and (b) electronic services are designed to meet the needs of the general public.

Ruth Kelly: Designing websites and services around customer needs has always been at the heart of the Government drive to put services online. The Cabinet Office has made extensive guidance available to public sector web managers through the publication of guidelines for UK Government websites.

Andrew Miller: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer and her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), but will she look at the available tools developed by companies such as Nomensa, which are aimed at people with visual impairments; and will she ensure that they become the norm as soon as possible on every Government-supported website?

Ruth Kelly: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in drawing attention to this matter, as well as other matters to do with information technology and the way in which citizens' experience can benefit from the use of internet technology. He is right to highlight the work of companies that promote tools to aid, for example, individuals with visual impairment. Through the web accessibility guidelines, the Government are committed to creating websites that are both visually appealing and user-centred. They should be accessible to people with various disabilities and individual needs, and we are committed to advancing that work.

Public Health White Paper

John Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning the publication of the White Paper outlining the Government's policy on health improvement.
	Over the past eight months of the consultation we have seen speculation after speculation about the contents of the White Paper and alleged leak after alleged leak. I regret the fact that some of that, unfortunately, has been relatively accurate. Much of it has been highly inaccurate and some of it has been sheer fantasy. Today, I want to tell the House the reality.
	Last century saw undreamt of progress in the health of the people of England, gathering pace after 1948 as the establishment of the NHS permitted free universal provision of immunisation, screening and treatment to make inroads into ill health and premature death. It should be a matter of pride that a child born today is likely to live nine and a half years longer than one born on the eve of the formation of the national health service in 1948.
	The role of Government, however, in the prevention of ill health during that period was often characterised by a top-down approach. This White Paper is different. It is about enabling people to exercise choice; it is about extending opportunity and offering security to those who want to choose a healthier life; it is about people improving themselves. In the White Paper, it is the public, not Whitehall, who, for the first time have set the agenda and identified what "for their own good" means. Over the past eight months, we have consulted, discussed, listened, canvassed and calculated public opinion on a wider scale than ever before to get in touch with people's real concerns, to ask what they wanted and how they could help to realise their aims.
	People know that in recent years new opportunities have been opening up rapidly, but with them come growing inequalities. Paradoxically, affluence and comfort often bring their own health challenges—growing obesity, lack of exercise and more casual sexual relations. Faced with these, many people want more opportunities to live healthier lifestyles. They know that they will become healthier only through their own efforts. However, they look to Government to assist them with information about healthy and unhealthy choices—not to make the decisions for them, but to provide them with clear information to allow them to make the decisions.
	Now that the NHS is improving waiting times, reducing waiting lists and improving emergency care departments, that frees up time and space in the NHS for effective action on prevention, to help people make those changes and decisions for themselves. That is why this White Paper commits us to ensuring that health services such as sexual health services, the NHS stop smoking services and obesity services all benefit fully from the drive for modernisation and improvement that is spreading across the rest of the NHS.
	Our starting point is informed choice. That means an approach that respects the freedom of individual choice in a diverse, open and more questioning society. It also means addressing inequalities so that everyone can have real choice—addressing the differences that locality and social conditions make. [Interruption.] It may not interest those interrupting, but it is a sad fact that even today a male child born in Manchester lives at least seven years less than a child born in Kensington and Chelsea. Those inequalities cannot be tolerated any longer. To improve the nation's health, we need everybody to have the chance to make more healthy choices, not just the better-off.
	We will not be successful in tackling these inequalities unless we work in different ways. We need to reach people where they live their lives, and provide services that are accessible to them and that derive from their local communities. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and I were determined that this White Paper would set out action that maximises the positive impact that local authorities and others can have to help people make those healthier choices. For example, this coming spring the communities for health programme will bring all parts of the community and locality together—statutory and voluntary organisations, businesses and individuals—in campaigns to improve local health. Working with local government we will be targeting funding to give greater priority to areas of high health need. New investment in primary care facilities for some 50 per cent. of the population by 2008 will focus on the most deprived areas of our communities.
	In our widespread consultation, people made it clear that they often want to change, but they lack accessible help and advice. So, to help the public make healthy choices, we will provide them with clear information on those choices. Building on the success of NHS Direct, which had 7 million advice and assistance calls last year, we will introduce a completely new service—Health Direct, a telephone, online and digital TV information service, making advice on health, nutrition, diet and a whole spectrum of public health issues available to everyone, not just to the better-off.
	We will give specific help to specific groups. Thirty years ago, almost half the adult population of this country—46 per cent.—smoked. Today the figure is 26 per cent. We will take another 2 million people off that figure over the next five years. Ultimately, people need to make the decision to improve their own health themselves, and to give up smoking everywhere, not only at work and in the pub, but at home as well. The Government cannot make that decision; it is a personal decision. We can help, as we helped 125,000 quitters last year through NHS smoking cessation services. We are radically extending our campaign against smoking and will extend our smoking cessation services.
	We will introduce action to put hard-hitting picture warnings on cigarette packets; further restrictions on tobacco advertising; tough action on shops that sell cigarettes to children; improvements in the way in which the NHS helps people to stop smoking and to stay stopped; and further reductions in tobacco smuggling. And, as I will outline later, we will see smoke-free environments becoming the norm both at work and at leisure.
	Others have told us that they would like help too. Many people today, such as busy mums, have told us that they want their families to eat more healthily, but they need more easily accessible and simple information to guide them. Together with the Food Standards Agency, retailers and the food industry, we will develop a simple code for processed food to indicate fat, sugar and salt content for shoppers to help people choose what they require for a healthy and balanced diet.
	Our general approach is, of course, to recognise the right of adults to make their own informed choices, but people, particularly parents, feel differently about children. Parents know that their children's health is primarily their responsibility, but in our discussions they told us that government, businesses and anyone who has an influence also shares that particular responsibility to protect children from premature exposure to a world of adult choices, and they want the security of knowing that that will be done. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I will ask Ofcom to consult on advertising to children on television and will work with the industry to limit other forms of advertising to children outside television itself.
	Led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, we will develop our approach to health in schools to ensure that everything that a school does—lessons, sport, food, school nurses, personal, social and health education—is brought together in an co-ordinated whole school approach to health to start children on the right path to a healthy life.
	We will increase activity for children in schools. The Government are investing an unprecedented amount—more than £1 billion up to 2006—in physical education and school sport. We are developing more sports specialist academies, strengthening the protection for school playing fields and helping more children to walk or cycle safely to school. In an age in which obesity has trebled in a generation, and in which, if the number of obese children continues to rise, we face the prospect of children having a shorter life expectancy than their parents. To be effective, the support that we provide to combat that must be personally tailored to the realities of individual lives, with services and support personalised sensitively and flexibly and provided conveniently.
	Through new technology and investment, we intend to offer everyone in England the opportunity to develop their personal health guide and, starting with the areas of greatest disadvantage, we will provide people with NHS health trainers to support their motivation in making the difficult decisions to choose healthy lifestyles. That which the better-off regard as of assistance in a healthy lifestyle should be available to the rest of the people of England too.
	Healthy living starts at a young age, which is why we have decided to provide funding so that by 2010 every PCT in England will be resourced to have at least one full-time school nurse working with each cluster of primary schools and secondary schools in their area.
	One of our greatest challenges is in respect of sexual health. It is a staggering fact that no fewer than one in 10 sexually active young women is today infected with chlamydia. We have to bring this problem out of the shadows and into the forefront of our attention. We therefore intend to launch a new national campaign targeted particularly at those at risk of catching sexually transmitted infections or of unplanned pregnancies; to accelerate the implementation of our chlamydia screening programme to cover the whole of England by 2007; and to offer the same fast access to high quality genito-urinary medicine services that patients expect of other NHS treatment—in other words, by 2008 everyone referred to a genito-urinary medicine clinic should be able to have an appointment not within weeks but within 48 hours, and we will make that a priority.
	We recognise, too, the damage that excessive alcohol can have on individuals, families and society at large. That is why we will work with the Portman Group to cut down on binge drinking and with industry to develop a voluntary social responsibility scheme for alcohol producers and retailers in order to protect young people; support Ofcom in strengthening the rules on broadcast advertising of alcohol, particularly to protect the under-18s; and invest to improve services to help the NHS to tackle alcohol problems at an early stage.
	But there is another area where people want a greater degree of security and protection in maintaining a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families. I have stressed throughout that our approach has been guided by informed choice on the part of individuals, with Government playing our role in providing information, encouragement and support to assist individuals in making the healthy choices. We do that because we believe that in a free society men and women ultimately have the right within the law to choose their own lifestyle, even when it may damage their own health.
	People do not, however, have the right to damage the health of others or to impose on them an intolerable degree of inconvenience or nuisance. We therefore intend to shift the balance significantly in favour of smoke-free environments. From 2006, we propose to introduce changes to ensure that all Government Departments will be smoke-free; that all enclosed public places and workplaces—other than licensed premises, which are dealt with separately—will be smoke-free; that all restaurants will be smoke-free; and that all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free. Other pubs and bars—about 20 per cent. of those in England—and membership clubs will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free, but smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere.
	We will therefore ensure that people are able to go to their workplace or to choose to go out for a meal or a drink without damage, inconvenience or pollution from second-hand smoke, but do so in a way which, while protecting that right of the majority, still allows a degree of choice—albeit more limited than before—to the minority. I believe that that is a sensible solution that balances the protection of the majority with personal freedom for the minority in England.
	This White Paper promotes the opportunity for healthy living in a manner and scale unseen before. It envisages investing at least £1 billion in public health over the next three years. It treats our fellow citizens as adults capable of making their own decisions, while providing advice, information, encouragement, resources and personal support for those who want to make the healthy choices and protection from the effects of those who do not want to make those choices. It begins the transition of our health care away from just a national treatment system for illness and towards a true national health service. It offers the opportunity for healthy living to everyone who wants to take it, and the security of knowing that for those who do so a degree of protection will be afforded to them and their families. In doing so, it begins to fulfil at last the founding vision of a true national health service. I commend it to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the customary hour's advance sight of his statement. The House will have seen copious leaks of the White Paper and will be able to judge how many of them were informed speculation and how many were just spin. In any case, after all that, what have we got? Labour's big conversation has turned out to be all talk. After seven years of a lack of priority for public health, all the Government can offer is gimmicks and a nanny state. [Interruption.] As one would expect, the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Andrew Lansley: At least they are awake while I am speaking, Mr. Speaker.
	The Secretary of State did not admit to the extent of the Government's failures on public health, so let me tell the House about them. Levels of obesity in this country have risen by more than a third in the last decade, and at a rate far greater than in the rest of Europe. Obesity may soon be this country's greatest preventable cause of disease and premature death. The proportion of people who smoke, which fell by a third in the 1970s and 1980s has been virtually unchanged since 1997. British teenagers are now among the healthiest drinkers—[Laughter]—I mean the heaviest drinkers in Europe. We are seeing serious levels of liver disease—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Government Members find this funny, because liver clinics in hospitals are treating increasingly younger people with serious liver disease. Several thousand young people are dying from the consequences of liver disease and liver failure.
	The number of new HIV diagnoses has doubled since 1997. Sexually transmitted infections are increasing. Chlamydia incidence has more than doubled and that of gonorrhoea has increased several times more than previous recorded levels. We have seen serious syphilis outbreaks where previously there were none. MMR vaccination rates are down to 82 per cent. because the Government lost control and public confidence in vaccination went down. The number of hepatitis C reports has doubled and up to 200,000 people may have the disease but be undiagnosed. TB is up by 15 per cent. and respiratory disease is this country is twice the EU average. According to the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust,
	"there is no sign of any progress since 1997 in reducing inequalities in health."
	Listening to the Secretary of State, one would imagine this was year zero in public health. But five years ago, the Government published a White Paper on public health. At that time, the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was the Minister of State in the Department of Health. That document said nothing about tackling obesity at the very time when it was rising in this country much faster than in other European countries. In contrast, the 1992 "Health of the Nation" White Paper published by the Conservative Government set out plans for tackling obesity and was regarded by the World Health Organisation as a ground-breaking document.
	Five years ago, the Government said that they would introduce a sports strategy. Since then, young people have been doing less exercise. There has been a reduction in time spent on physical activity and fewer children participate in sport out of school. The lack of sport and exercise in recent years is at least as significant a cause of rising obesity in children as their diet. Of the £700 million promised four years ago from the lottery for sport in schools and communities, barely 1 per cent. has been spent.
	In the document published five years ago, the Government said that health action zones would tackle inequalities. Now they have been abandoned. Five years ago, the Government said that the Health Development Agency was going to tackle public health problems, but now they say that it is to be abolished. It was all talk, just as the present White Paper is all talk. Again, five years ago, the Government said in their White Paper:
	"We do not believe in the old 'Nanny State approach'",
	yet now they believe in the new nanny state approach, but not in doing things that really work.
	For years, public health needs have lacked priority, the public health service has fragmented and the messages given out by Government have been inconsistent and incoherent. Yet the Government have not understood that the solution lies in reversing those failings. [Interruption.] The Government should give public health a priority and create a unified and influential service. They should provide coherent and consistent messages based on evidence. Instead, the Secretary of State reaches for more gimmicks and for bans.
	Four months ago, the Secretary of State said smoking was one of life's small pleasures, but today he wants to ban it in public places. [Interruption.] Does he not realise that, in the time that it takes to implement legislation, the industry could and would deliver a voluntary code? That would remove smoking from up to 80 per cent. of the space available in public houses. It would ban it from the bar area, and people behind the bar would not be able to smoke.
	I am also confident that we could expect the industry to achieve a smoke-free environment wherever children have access. Typically, the Secretary of State did not even mention the central importance of achieving smoke-free environments in those public places to which children have access. The Government's approach simply risks delaying progress. It could send smokers home and thus expose families and children to more second-hand smoke.
	On the advertising of foods for children, Ofcom said this year—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will settle down. Some of the hon. Members who are shouting have put their names down to be called to make a contribution from the Back Benches, but I shall refuse to call them if they do not settle down. If the shouting continues, what could happen is that the House might hear only the Front-Bench spokesmen, and perhaps the Chairman of the Health Committee, and no one else.

Andrew Lansley: On the advertising of foods for children, Ofcom this year said that a total ban on such advertising would be "ineffective and disproportionate". The FSA and the industry are working towards a new advertising code, so is not the Secretary of State offering a mere gimmick?
	Traffic-light labelling of food is another half-baked idea that the Department communicated to the press.

David Hinchliffe: It is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Andrew Lansley: The traffic-light labelling is based on the concept of good or bad food, but what matters is whether a diet is good or bad. How would the system work? If a wholemeal bread roll is low in sugar, moderate in fats and high in salt, would it merit a green, amber or red light? If fruit juices, cheese or fish have red traffic lights, how will people understand that they can form part of a healthy diet? How does a crude traffic-light system deal with the major differences between the diets of adults and of children?
	Different people need different diets. If I had high cholesterol, I would eat less in the way of fats. If I had high blood pressure, I would reduce my salt intake and I would reduce my sugar intake if I had diabetes. Traffic-light systems do not enable people to get the information that they need, but the Secretary of State should say whether he has such a system in mind. If he does, will it be acceptable to industry, and to the European Commission?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that food labelling should be based on information about foods' nutritional value and their contribution to a good diet? That means people should be given information about the recommended daily amount of calories, fats, sugar and salt. Such a system would be well understood by the public, it is essential when it comes to putting together a good diet, and it is not likely to fall foul of EU restrictions. Adopting such a system would mean that Britain would lead the European debate on these matters. Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition are right to argue for a scheme like that in preference to a crude traffic-light system?
	The inadequacies of the statement that the House has just heard are too many to list, but some are really striking. Where is the commitment to mental health, and especially to the provision of access to services for the 75 per cent. of young people who have mental health problems yet have no access to those services? Where is the commitment to a national campaign aimed at all young people to encourage and empower them to resist peer pressure to engage in early or unprotected sex, or in the misuse of drugs or the abuse of alcohol?
	Where is the commitment to an immediate national roll-out of chlamydia testing? What attempt is being made to ensure that people who attend genito-urinary clinics are not turned away? One third of clinics now report that they frequently have to do that. Where is the commitment to evidence-based screening by family doctor services, as opposed to the gimmicks of asking GPs to turn into lifestyle gurus or sending people to fitness trainers? The Secretary of State may want a Carole Caplin approach to health policy, but we have an NHS short of physiotherapists, community nurses, midwives, district nurses, chiropody services, occupational therapists, dentists and radiographers. The Government need to sort out their priorities.
	The White Paper is a missed opportunity. The public health service needs a Cabinet champion. It needs the restoration of a high status role for public health professionals, which they had when they were medical officers of health. It needs independent, evidence-based reports and recommendations from an independent public health commission. It needs a service with focus, with resources and with the ability to lever change. We need behavioural change, not a nanny state. We need public health teams with staffing and resources to do the job, able to engage GPs, health visitors and school nurses—in each school—in delivering the service.
	We need Government-wide action. We need sport. We need exercise for young people. We need other Departments that have not been delivering on their part of the public health obligation to do so. We need a Government—they will be the next Conservative Government—who will take the action to give us organisation, resources and leverage across the public and private sectors to deliver public health objectives. In doing so, we will support an NHS that is genuinely focused on promoting good health and reducing disease—we will not leave the NHS simply to treat the consequences of public health failures.

John Reid: I do not quite know how to respond to that. There was not much there in the way of constructive suggestions. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had time to read anything that was supplied, but there is a whole section on mental health, which he does not appear to have seen.
	If I pin together everything that the hon. Gentleman said, it was that just because we cannot do everything, we should not do anything. That is the philosophy that ran through it. For instance, it is true that we are prepared to take the legislative and regulatory path to ensure that people are protected from second-hand smoke, but the idea that that somehow prevents the industry from moving ahead with smoke-free areas is utter fantasy. Leaving aside the fact that the industry has had several decades to do that, let me make it plain that I would welcome the industry moving ahead. If the industry wants to move, before we have legislation in place, to exactly the point at which we want to legislate, we will all enjoy that. Now, though, that is just an excuse from the Conservatives for doing nothing.
	Similarly, on Ofcom, it is true that it opposed a total ban on television advertising of foods for children, but we are not proposing a total ban and Ofcom was not opposed to restrictions. Once again, because the Conservatives say we cannot do everything, they claim we cannot do anything at all.
	Similarly, we are asking the Food Standards Agency, together with the industry, to work out a simplified form of indicating the nutritional value of food, but that does not stop us conducting a campaign at the European level as well. On the Government Benches, we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. We can do several things at once. Just because we are not doing everything does not mean we cannot do several things.
	I am rather disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response. The world has moved on in the past quarter of a century, but it is obvious to me that the Conservative party has not moved with it. What we heard today, again, were the same tired clichés and the same old vapid slogans—an accumulation of several centuries of Tory philosophy and thought dedicated to doing nothing and changing nothing. They are always on the side of the status quo, and always on the side of the producer and against the consumer. We are not going to act that way. Having consulted the people of this country, we are going to give them the information and resources that they need and the back-up and support they need. We are going to give that to everybody, not just the better off, so that they can make choices for themselves and their families that will give them a longer, healthier life.

David Hinchliffe: In contrast to the Opposition, I warmly welcome today's statement, which is both comprehensive and brave in many respects. The Government have listened to a range of recommendations, including from the Health Committee, picked them up and run with them, and I genuinely appreciate the steps that have been taken.
	I wish to press my right hon. Friend on two points. One concern of mine is to put public health in the engine room of government. What steps have been taken structurally to ensure that public health concerns are addressed collectively across Departments when policies are being developed? Secondly, I accept that the Government are taking brave steps on the smoking issue, but I am slightly disappointed by the exemption, which will cause concerns. From my limited experience of standing at public bars, I am at a loss to understand how it will be possible to prevent smoke from elsewhere in a public bar getting to the bar area. I am particularly interested in the legal advice that the Government have received under health and safety legislation about protecting the interests of those staff working in bars where smoking will continue to be permitted.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he and the Health Committee have done on this issue. They have been a catalyst and, in some ways, a cattle prod for Ministers to make progress. He makes two very good points. The first is the nature of our approach across government. It is essential to recognise that people can make healthy choices, but they cannot always make them in circumstances of their own choosing. Therefore, people's social circumstances, and in some cases their geographical locality, can help or hinder them in making healthy choices.
	We have tried across government to work together and, indeed, we have established a Cabinet Committee—Misc. 27 for the "afactionados" who like to know such names—on which I can get together with my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to try to ensure that in schools, on sports fields and across the health service we are working towards a common end.
	I realise that the smoking exemption will be controversial. My hon. Friend said that he had limited experience of standing at bars. As someone who has perhaps a little more experience of doing that, I have thought about the issue carefully and discussed, argued and debated it. I have tried to balance the protection of people going about their daily business at work and at leisure who want to do so in a smoke-free atmosphere and who want to avoid the damage, pollution and inconvenience of second-hand smoke—people talk to me about their clothes smelling of smoke—with remembering that this is England and we take people's freedoms seriously. We should not try to prevent people from doing what is legal by other means. I have tried to provide an exemption that will not require a huge bureaucratic invention, because pubs are already classified into those that serve food and those that do not. It will also mean that people will not be forced into alleyways or out of the bar room and into their own living rooms to smoke even more there, because most of the evidence about the damage of passive smoking is based on those who live with a smoker. We have to be careful that in trying to solve one problem, we do not create another.
	I have tried to strike a balance between the protection of the majority and the freedom of the minority. Let us see how that works. I think that it will be a compromise that will commend itself to the vast majority of people in England.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to see the statement in advance. I agree that doing nothing to tackle the causes of ill health is not an option. A report by the Treasury estimated that the cost of doing nothing would add £30 billion a year to the cost of health care by 2020. By how much does the Secretary of State believe his package will reduce that estimate?
	The scientific evidence on second-hand smoking damaging health is overwhelming. Does the Secretary of State accept that passive smoking kills? What is a safe level of smoke? Does he accept the World Health Organisation research that shows that ventilation systems cannot guarantee a safe working environment? His proposals will consign those staff who work in pubs that do not serve food to an unsafe environment.
	The Secretary of State's proposals on clear labelling are welcome, although we would prefer a mandatory scheme. How will he monitor the codes of practice to ensure that they are being complied with? He referred to schools, which play a vital part in reinforcing healthy habits of diet and exercise. Given that nutrition was but an afterthought in the current school meals standards, why does the White Paper say that it will be another three years before new standards for nutrition will be brought in?
	The White Paper says next to nothing about poverty, poor housing and poor environment and the Department's role in developing health-promoting policies across government. Why are there no plans in the document for auditing the impact of Government policies on people's health—not just Department of Health policies but all Government policies? Clearly, there is a growing gap between the richest and the poorest in this country, and in terms of health it has grown over the past seven years.
	We heard today that the Secretary of State spent eight months consulting, yet he has just announced that he plans to conduct more consultations—he wants more consideration and debate, and more voluntary codes. The White Paper demonstrates that the Government, far from having courage, in fact lack the courage to take the necessary action to deal with the wide range of public health threats posed in this country. Through his statement today, the Secretary of State is saying that he is willing to allow us all to continue eating, drinking and breathing smoke at the last chance saloon.

John Reid: I shall start with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We think that what we are doing is proportionate to the challenges we face. It involves a combination of Government action, voluntary action and partnership, with legislation and regulation where necessary. There are a number of reasons why we are staging in action on smoking from 2006, 2007 and 2008. For instance, there may be a requirement for legislation for the latter stages. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that by 2006, Departments and the health service will be smoke free; by 2007, we intend that to apply right across all workplaces; and by 2008, all the regulations and legislation will, we hope, be in place for licensed premises. It is a matter of staging in and it will require legislation, not just reliance on voluntary measures.
	The costs of what I announced in the White Paper are in the order of £1 billion, but many times that amount will be saved. The hon. Gentleman is correct—the Conservatives take a very short-sighted view when they fail to recognise that this is on the grounds not only of good health for the nation, but of efficiency for the NHS. It is impossible to say exactly how much will be saved as that will depend on the effectiveness of how we proceed, but it will be many times £1 billion. The process will be overseen by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which will be tasked to look at the effectiveness of the White Paper. That is not a full audit across government, but it goes some way towards it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a straight question: do I accept that passive smoking damages health? Yes, I accept that. All the evidence shows that passive smoking increases the risk of cancer by about 23 or 24 per cent. and of coronary heart disease by about 25 per cent. I accept that. That is why I have done what I did today to try to protect people, including workers, because the vast majority will be working in an industry where 90-odd per cent. of restaurants and pubs—taking the two together—will be smoke free, and we will be prepared to legislate to ensure that in the remainder the bar area will be smoke free, too.
	I think that I have covered most of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Reviews are under way at present on nutrition in primary and secondary schools. We have looked at one and are in the course of considering the other, and I have been in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the matter.

Kali Mountford: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially his announcement about screening for chlamydia. Will he go further and look into how sexually transmitted diseases can be prevented through education and an understanding of appropriate sexual behaviour, so that the lives of many are not ruined by irreversible damage that could be prevented?

John Reid: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and we intend to try to highlight the issue in a major campaign because of the reservoir of anguish that is building up, particularly, although not exclusively, through chlamydia. Although chlamydia has no symptoms, it can lead to infertility and other serious complications further down the line, which is a source of possible anguish and cost for the future. So we will not only lead that campaign, but we fully intend to make much more information much more widely available, including through all the online internet services that young people use so often.

Paul Beresford: As a very part-time health professional, I am keen on any move that helps to reduce tobacco smoking and damage. I have talked to a number of publicans and restaurateurs in my constituency, and off the record, particularly away from the public bar, they are basically keen on a ban, but a total ban, perhaps for commercial reasons. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has left that door open.

John Reid: In some ways, the hon. Gentleman may be right. I can understand why such a ban could make things easier, for commercial reasons, for the providers, but our job is to look at the interests of the public— not the producers or providers, but the consumers. I therefore think that the balance that we have reached is appropriate, from the point of view of balancing the protection of the majority of people who want smoke-free areas with the protection of the rights of the minority in England who want to smoke a cigarette without damaging the health of others. That is what we have tried to do, while allowing diversity.
	The options would be, first, to say, "You shall not smoke anywhere at your leisure", and then to say, as is now happening in Sydney, with the Health Minister there, or in California, given the campaigns there, "You shall not smoke in the open air or on the beaches", the effect of which could be to increase the amount of smoking that goes on in the home, by pushing people to accept that that is the only place that they can smoke. All the damage in respect of passive smoking that hon. Friends and colleagues have mentioned is based on passive smoking damage to those who live with a smoker at home. I am trying to get the balance right. None of us is infallible and time will tell, but I think that our approach is proportional and balanced.

Kevin Barron: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the critical issues are those of lifestyle and personal choice. Although he has outlined the education initiatives, with the emphasis in the statement on sport and physical activity, will the Government take initiatives with the national curriculum to ensure that people make informed choices, so that we can really begin to improve health in this country? We are getting messages from different parts of society, but a comprehensive message should start at basic school level.

John Reid: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend has hit on critical point. I can give him some satisfaction by telling him that we will do exactly that, and I have been talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about it. Indeed, this afternoon I will go a school where the education incorporates practical and theoretical advice at primary level on nutrition and food and the history and narrative of balanced diets and healthy living. I have now extended the healthy school project—the free fruit—from the pilot areas to the whole of England for every four, five and six-year-old going to school, and we also have the five-a-day programme. All that is essential because it is not Jesuitical to say that if we have a child by the age of seven who has learned healthy living, it will stand them in good stead for the rest of their life. That is exactly what will happen.

Iris Robinson: We are all very concerned about the rise in the number of sexually transmitted illnesses. Has any research been carried out to ascertain whether there is a link between the rise in sexually transmitted illnesses and the availability of the morning-after pill?

John Reid: I do not think, off the top of my head, that I am aware of research on that specific item. However, if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will write to her.

Debra Shipley: Why did my right hon. Friend choose Ofcom, which does not support a ban on advertising to children of food high in fat, sugar and salt, to liaise with the food and drink and television industries, which are also against a ban? May I suggest that he should choose another organisation that is perhaps a little less biased, such as the Food Standards Agency or one of the 120 organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of General Practitioners—the list goes on—that have backed my call for a ban on the advertising of high fat and sugar food and drink to children? If he did that, I reassure him that more than 240 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House would support him, as would between 76 and 81 per cent. of the public, who have been extensively polled.

John Reid: My hon. Friend was too courteous to point out that many of those who signed the motion and supported that very call were Conservative Members. They regarded it as worth while and not nannyish, to use an expression that they tend to use. I used Ofcom to make the decision in the first instance because it is the independent body that has been set up to study such issues, and it has already started its consideration. It is true that it said that a ban, in itself, would not find favour with Ofcom, but it was not opposed to restrictions. I have also made it clear that if, after a reasonable time, the Government find it impossible to achieve their required end or cannot go in the direction in which they wish to go, I will then consider introducing legislation.
	A number of possibilities are available. One is the total ban before a certain time that my hon. Friend outlined; another is a tapered approach by which foods of a particular nature could not be advertised before a certain deadline, and would then be regulated after that and restricted. After another deadline, the provisions would be wider. One thing is certain: we cannot confine our approach just to television advertising—it must extend beyond that. However, this is our starting point.

Kenneth Clarke: I remind the House of a well-known interest that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that as his statement was riddled with constant references to the role of individual responsibility and personal choice in our society, he rather betrayed his guilt that his original instincts had been overruled? He has been rolled over by well-intentioned but very powerful lobbies, many of whom sit behind him. He has embarked on an extension of the criminal law, bans on advertising and regulation into areas of choice as to what people drink and eat—their choice of diet—and whether they smoke. That is an extraordinary extension of the role of the state into individual liberty and choice of lifestyle in this country.
	Does the Secretary of State further accept that the major pressures upon the health service, for which he is responsible, come from the fact that we have the longest-living, fittest and healthiest specimens of the human race who ever walked these islands? Fortunately, he has to contend with advances in medical care and ever-increasing age expectation, but he has difficulty in doing so. Will he therefore not believe, among the statistical nonsense, all this stuff about the billions of pounds that the proposals will save? Will he make sure that he concentrates on worthwhile things, such as improving the services to deal with sexual ill health, and not start employing yet more campaigners, counsellors, lifestyle advisers and health gurus? They make up an industry in themselves and they will consume his resources and introduce an interventionism into the lives of individual citizens in which Governments should not engage.

John Reid: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I know well, is an archetypal lifestyle guru in his own way. It is just not true that we are dictating to people what they should eat or drink. At their request, we are giving them advice and information in an easily accessible and understandable fashion about what they might or might not want to eat. They can ultimately make their choice. I do not see why he should complain about dealing with the complicated things on the back of processed food that one has to be a biochemist or have hours at hand to understand. I do not understand why it is objectionable to put such messages in a simple fashion.
	Ultimately, people will make their own choices. I have made it plain today that they will make their own choices about smoking and drinking; I know that as well as anybody. People make their own choices and they pull themselves out of their own ill health or their own disadvantage. The question is whether we should help them in doing so.
	All we are trying to do is to say, "If you wish to live a healthier life, here is the information that will allow you to do it." The one area where we are saying, "You shouldn't be able to do that" is when people are damaging the health of others. We are saying, "In a civilised society, your rights have to be constrained in case they impinge upon the rights and damage the health and lives of others." That is all we are doing with passive smoking. I would have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would think that the solution I came up with was a balanced one that might attract the support of such a balanced person as himself.

Stephen Hesford: May I direct my right hon. Friend to the passive smoking issue? This welcome White Paper builds on the very good work that the Government have been doing since 1997 in this area—in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government. In a very extensive survey that I carried out in Wirral, West, more than 90 per cent. of those surveyed—including societies, clubs, members of the public, workplace operatives and companies—said that they wanted a ban on passive smoking in the workplace and other public places. On that basis, why will my constituents be left asking why there should be inequality between localities. In my right hon. Friend's locality in Scotland there will be a ban; in my locality in Wirral, West there will not.

John Reid: My hon. Friend is right that people in England will have a freedom that apparently will not be available to people in Scotland, but I have to do what I think is right. It may be some consolation to him to know that what I am doing is actually what the men and women of England want us to do. There is no question about the statistics on this. The Office for National Statistics figures and the various other scientifically balanced opinion polls that have been carried out are quite clear that when people are asked whether they want a general ban in the workplace and in restaurants, more than 90 per cent. answer yes, but when it comes to pubs, 80 per cent. are opposed to a total ban. About 20 per cent. support a total ban but more than 80 per cent. support restrictions. I place no emphasis on that one way or the other, but that is where men and women in England are. That is not the only reason I reached the decision that I did, but having reached it at least there is some consolation for the House in knowing that that is what people outside the House and the Chamber actually believe should be done.

George Young: The Secretary of State has just announced wide-ranging restrictions on smoking in public places, and speaking purely personally I wholeheartedly welcome what he has just done, in the name of public health. May I press him on the issue raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford)? From the point of view of public health, and from the point of view of the customer or the employee, why has he chosen to exclude pubs and bars that do not prepare food?

John Reid: First, I wanted to get a balance between protecting the majority's health and preserving the minority's rights.Secondly, a distinction is already made between restaurants and pubs that sell food and other pubs that do not. There is already a classification, which is to hand, which means that no additional bureaucracy or definition will be necessary, because that classification is already carried out through the local authorities.
	Thirdly, I made that choice because it is the nearest position to that which the public, in our consultation and in all opinion polls, said that they wanted. It is slightly ahead of public opinion because what public opinion would have us do is to have restrictions within a pub itself, rather than restrictions among pubs. So, it is not exactly replicating public opinion, and it is not, as some people say, behind public opinion—it is slightly in front of it. For those three reasons, this seemed the most balanced way of doing things.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the White Paper and the important measures contained in it. Will my right hon. Friend say more about how he envisages that the campaigns mentioned in the White Paper will be designed and delivered to reach young people, especially young women who have problems with not only sexual health, but drinking and smoking, and who, by and large, have the responsibility of feeding young children? We all know that it is exceptionally hard to reach those people with such a message.

John Reid: Yes, indeed. The first thing that we want is a public information campaign at a level such that sexual health matters break out of the shadows in which they have traditionally been dealt with. That traditional situation will come as no surprise to hon. Members, because few people come to our surgeries to complain about a lack of information or the inadequate service of a GUM clinic for the obvious reason that they are embarrassed about such matters. Getting rid of such embarrassment is the first necessary step towards tackling the problem.
	We need a public information campaign to alert people to dangers and we must draw on every single facility used by young people to achieve that. We must use not only people in the community such as health trainers, assistants, advisers and GPs, but cinemas, online websites and magazines that are especially popular with young people. Those are the vehicles through which we should try to deliver the message.

Hywel Williams: On 22 January 2003, the Welsh Assembly Government asked for legislation to ban smoking in public places in Wales. Will the Secretary of State tell the House his Government's intentions for Wales regarding that issue?

John Reid: Public health is devolved to Wales, so it was out of respect for Wales, not disrespect, that I referred to England today. Matters such as advertising, however, apply consistently throughout the United Kingdom, so the House will legislate on them for Wales. I hope that discussions will continue between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Assembly on a range of such matters. I hope that many of the measures in the White Paper, including perhaps those on smoking, will commend themselves to Wales. If the Assembly wants us to assist it, as we pass legislation, to carry forward its public health programme—I know that the First Minister is deeply committed to that—I shall be happy to try to oblige.

Peter Bradley: I welcome the statement and the White Paper, and do not believe that difficult and debateable issues of balance should distract from the positive package of measures. I have also conducted a survey among my constituents and, of the 600 people who responded, 75 per cent. wanted a ban on smoking in public places.
	In cracking down on binge drinking, which it is obviously right to do, is my right hon. Friend worried that we might be creating conditions for binge smoking? How will striking the balance that he set out help smokers to quit, and how can he guarantee that people will have the choice of a smoke-free environment if the only pub in their neighbourhood is a smokers' pub? Will he listen to representations on the issue and be prepared to concede that the balance that he has struck might need to be readdressed?

John Reid: I assure my hon. Friend that I do not want to set other hares running by saying that I shall think about that and come back with another idea next week. We are where we are, and a great deal of thought has gone into our proposals. It is true that the measure will not stop people smoking by itself, although it might discourage them. However, it is only one of a range of measures. We helped 125,000 people to give up smoking last year and I want to double—and more—that number over the next few years by using smoking cessation services, hotlines, information, high taxation, the fear created by the warnings displayed on packets, restrictions on advertising and the availability of nicotine patches on the NHS. A whole host of measures is required.
	I have said all along that a ban is the sexy item on the agenda, but on its own it will not significantly reduce the number of people who smoke. We must be careful not to ghettoise people smoking in their front rooms. If a group of people comes together to smoke, at least we may assume that it is largely composed of smokers who are damaging their health anyway through smoking, rather than passive smoking. At least we are minimising the danger of passive smoking, but the measure on its own will not reduce smoking, which is why we have a battery and array of assistance, resources, advice and information. At the end of the day, we just say to people, "If you keep smoking, you're going to kill yourself." That is the biggest and most persuasive factor.

Sandra Gidley: The Secretary of State treated us to his little list of people who would be helped by the measures, but let me remind him of the people he missed out—the old and the vulnerable. Does he agree that damp conditions and cold housing are for many the biggest contributors to poor health and that the White Paper misses the opportunity to deal with that problem?

John Reid: Yes, I agree with the first statement, but not the second. Addressing the problems and inequalities faced by the most vulnerable is a large feature of the White Paper. I have in particular dealt with the Deputy Prime Minister on that. The hon. Lady is right about cold, damp, flu and so on. Vaccines, insulation, better housing and transport have a direct effect on health. We have known that since the Black report many decades ago. I say in all modesty that the Government are doing a great deal across many areas and we will continue to work across Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chair of the Select Committee, asked us to.

Howard Stoate: As chair of the all-party groups on primary care and public health and on obesity, I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State, who has done a marvellous job on setting out how public health can be improved. As he knows, I am working with a group of internationally acclaimed experts on obesity to set up a national institute of obesity. How does he envisage that institute working closely with the Government to achieve the necessary aim of tackling obesity?

John Reid: My hon. Friend makes the pertinent point that such things cannot be done by the Government alone. It requires a combination of Government, local government, partnerships, charities and, ultimately, individuals. He mentioned one of the important institutes that we want to work closely with over the coming years. The fact that we have prioritised the issue in the way that we have means that smoking has taken the headlines in much of the press, but out in the real world there is a huge concern and thirst for information on healthy diets and how to combat obesity. We will certainly work with the institute on that.

Julie Morgan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him on what he has achieved and will achieve. I am also pleased that Wales may have the opportunity to introduce its own measures on the back of other legislation. I am sure that he knows that a working party in Wales is consulting on public health issues.
	May I also express my disappointment that the measures to provide smoke-free work places dos not extend to bars? What legal advice has my right hon. Friend received on the position of bar staff who may be affected by passive smoking and who will be the only employees left exposed to it?

John Reid: No, I have not received legal advice on that. Ultimately, it would be up to individuals to take a civil action, as anyone is free to do in any circumstances. I merely point out that, after we accomplish the proposals that I have set out, every bar that serves food and every restaurant in England will be smoke-free, which is a huge step forward in the protection of everyone, including those who work in those environments, from passive smoking. I have also said that I want to ensure, in legislation if necessary, that the bar area is smoke-free, even in those areas where smoking is permitted.
	In addition, one might reflect on the fact that if 90 to 95 per cent. of the aggregate number of restaurants, bars and so on are smoke-free, workers will have a huge choice, which does not exist now, on where they work, as will customers on where they go. By any standard, although this is a public health measure and not an employment or health and safety measure, workers will know that it is a huge advance on where we are now.

Andrew MacKay: Constituents of mine employed in casinos would like a workplace ban on smoking. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the eight new super-casinos that have just been announced by the Government will have such a ban and that different regulations will not apply to them?

John Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman lets us build the things, we might then decide who will be allowed into them. I have said that the exclusions will be pubs that do not sell food and certified membership clubs—it is as simple as that. The latter are classified as clubs that one cannot walk into off the street; one has to apply for membership, then wait for a certain period. Presumably—I am not a member of such a club—they include some of the London clubs, along with the Royal British Legion and golf and rugby clubs that have memberships. Such bodies may or may not be smoke-free. I think that many will go smoke-free, but it will be for their members to decide.

Richard Taylor: I too welcome the White Paper wholeheartedly, especially the plan to help more people to walk or cycle safely to school. Will the Secretary of State enlarge on how he plans to do that?

John Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. In the past 10 years or so we have made some, but not vast, headway in that respect. I have been speaking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and considerable extra money is being put in. There are two dimensions worth highlighting: first, cycle lanes and, secondly, the journey to and from school. The issue is complex, because we have to take into account the fact that parents' fears and the desire to walk or cycle to school rise and fall according to the horror stories that appear on television and the dangers of traffic. We are trying as much as we can to encourage a reduction in the school run and an increase in walking or cycling to and from school. I hope that we will be able to develop that in the coming years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Points of Order

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the Government argued that the redeployment of Black Watch troops was to enable American forces to launch an attack on Falluja. My constituents are remarkably concerned about the destruction of that city, culminating in today's reports of the murder of an injured, unarmed Iraqi civilian by US marines. Has no Minister asked to come to the House to make a statement in response to the genuine concern arising in my constituency and, I have no doubt, throughout the rest of the country about what appears to be a rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq? I know that you cannot demand that a Minister come to the House to answer questions, but I shall be grateful if you can assist me in obtaining for my constituents some direct response from a Minister on a matter for which Ministers are in no small measure responsible.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed, but I have no knowledge of any Minister wishing to come to the House to make a statement.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I gave Mr. Speaker prior notice. Yesterday evening, the BBC carried an extensive report on the public health White Paper, including quotations from the document—lines such as, "In the foreword the Government will say," and quotations from the Department of Health spokesman. This morning, all the main newspapers carried detailed reports about the White Paper and bullet-points, which we now know were accurate, setting out the main provisions, and The Sun had a question-and-answer briefing on how the ban will hit at work and play. Is it not discourteous to the House that Ministers did not make the statement here first, but gave all that information to the media 12 hours earlier? Is that not particularly serious, given that Mr. Speaker and his predecessor have made the point on a number of occasions that the House should be told first?
	With this particular Secretary of State, there have been two other occasions in recent years when that guidance has been specifically brought to his attention, in respect of the strategic defence review and the MRSA clean-up announcement, yet, again, here we are, on his watch, with an announcement made to the media ahead of the House.

Peter Lilley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that on 8 December last year, Mr. Speaker heard a point of order from me about a similar offence by the same Secretary of State, who had announced on a non-sitting Friday new policies on MRSA and failed to make any statement in the House. Mr. Speaker told him in no uncertain terms that Ministers were expected to make announcements in the House. You may also recall that Mr. Speaker promised that I would be called at Question Time the next day to allow the Secretary of State to make such a statement. He then defended himself on the ground that the statement that he had made outside the House contained nothing new, as was the case during the first 10 minutes of his statement today.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House is well aware of Mr. Speaker's views on this matter. He has certainly made them plain on more than one occasion, as has his predecessor. I can only say that the Secretary of State concerned was in his place when those points were made.

Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 12 noon today, the Home Secretary published by way of a written statement his response to the report by the Prison Service ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, into the fire and incident at Yarl's Wood in my constituency two and a half years ago. The report implicates the Government in a negligent handling of the asylum system, building a detention centre unfit for purpose, refusing to fit sprinklers and placing in it people who should not have been there, at risk both to themselves and to others, including the brave people who dealt with the incident on the day. Have you received any indication from the Home Secretary or any member of his team that he should come to the House to answer questions about his response to a very serious report that implicates the Government in considerable mishandling and negligence?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of any request from the Home Secretary to come to the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a written statement but I am not aware of any other request. No doubt the matter is now on the record and will be noted.

Braille Identity Cards

Jon Trickett: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all public authorities and certain regulated companies and organisations providing written means of identification to persons seeking to enter private residences to include braille information about those persons on the written means of identification; and for connected purposes.
	This is a modest proposal to afford a degree of protection to a particularly vulnerable group of consumers from rogue doorstep callers. I am thinking of those individuals who are visually impaired in some way.
	There is widespread support across the political spectrum for including protection against rogue doorstep callers. There is a political will in the House and elsewhere to improve such protection. Many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who have fallen victim to the activities of unscrupulous doorstep callers. Concern has been expressed in the House in a number of debates in recent times. Private Members' Bills have been introduced during the Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) tabled an early-day motion on this matter that attracted the support of more than 100 Members on both sides of the House.
	The Bill that I seek leave to introduce has gained the support of more than 60 Members from all parties represented in the House, as well as from 20 organisations with a particular interest in the matters raised in the Bill. Organisations that support the principles underlying my Bill include the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, which seeks ways to design out crime, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers—the national gas safety watchdog, to which I shall refer later—and the National Federation for the Blind of the United Kingdom, which is active in many constituencies.
	The problem of rogue doorstep traders is significant. As recently as May, the Office of Fair Trading concluded that bogus trading was characterised by consumers being
	"cold-called and tricked or pressurised into paying large sums often for shoddy goods and services . . . its distinguishing feature is the high degree of deception and intimidation involved."
	I firmly believe that the informed consumer is a safer consumer, and programmes such as "Rogue Traders" and "Watchdog" help to increase consumer awareness. Last year, I supported a campaign by journalist Vivienne Parry in Woman's Own that sought to expose gas installers who were operating illegally. Such campaigns can play a huge role in helping to inform consumers about how they can protect themselves, and I pay tribute to everyone involved in exposing bogus activities. More, however, needs to be done because, despite the best efforts of campaigners, the OFT estimates that about 15,000 bogus trading cases are reported each year.
	I discovered the full extent of the threat that rogue doorstep callers pose in my capacity as chairman of the all-party group on gas safety. At the very least, rogue callers rip off consumers, but those who undertake gas safety work can endanger lives. CORGI keeps figures on the problem that show that work undertaken by illegal installers has a high chance of incorporating a significant gas safety defect. Consumer protection for gas installation and other kinds of activity is literally a matter of life and death. It is vital that consumers be provided with the necessary information to help them protect themselves. The threat of exploitation is particularly acute for the most vulnerable groups in society, and I am pleased to report that many organisations are already working on innovative projects to increase protection for them. Mencap, for example, has worked with Energywatch to develop accessible communications for people with learning disabilities.
	My Bill focuses on increasing information protection for visually impaired people, who are particularly vulnerable in their own home. It would introduce a requirement for all local authorities and certain regulated companies and organisations to include Braille on the identification that they provide for their employees or the people whom they register to go to consumers' homes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) for pointing out that only a small proportion of visually impaired people can read Braille, so my Bill will not solve completely the problems posed by doorstep callers. As well as Braille, organisations should consider other means of assisting visually impaired people such as the password scheme operated by some energy companies that gives consumers prior notification of doorstep calls and issues a password that callers use to identify themselves. The RNIB has clear print guidelines on the use of appropriate font type and size and good colour contrast. I urge other organisations to adhere to those guidelines, but Braille identifiers are an innovative, simple and relatively cheap way of making a difference, and should be pursued. Including Braille on identity cards allows doorstep callers to post their card through the door, enabling a visually impaired consumer to assess whether to open the door to them. The Braille identifier would provide much-needed assurance in what could otherwise feel like a threatening situation.
	My Bill does not refer to the national identity card that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering, but particularly given his background, I hope that the Home Office will consider Braille identifiers as part of the national identity card scheme, if it is introduced. The model for it already exists, and Ministers should consider it carefully. CORGI, the national gas safety watchdog, has led the way in introducing Braille on its ID cards for all registered gas installers. There are about 98,000 of them, so that was not a small exercise, yet it was carried out successfully.
	British Gas is considering the use of Braille on the ID cards of all its gas engineers who need to go into people's homes. That would be an excellent step forward and I urge British Gas to take it. CORGI, which is still the only organisation in the country using Braille on ID cards, has demonstrated that it can be done successfully, quickly and cheaply. All organisations should be encouraged to follow such a procedure. Given that most organisations periodically renew the ID cards used by their employees, often annually, the phased introduction of Braille seems entirely possible. The technology exists and I am told that it is quite cheap.
	There is a rumour that, as the House rises on Thursday, my Bill may not become law. There may be some substance to that rumour, but I am introducing the Bill to raise awareness and stimulate debate in the House and elsewhere about simple and inexpensive measures, such as the use of Braille, that can be taken to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the most unscrupulous. The use of Braille has the potential to improve the information given to a particularly vulnerable group of consumers. I therefore urge the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Jon Trickett, Mr. Bill O'Brien, Colin Burgon, Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Lepper, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Phil Willis, Mrs. Iris Robinson, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Fabian Hamilton and Rob Marris.

Braille Identity Cards

Jon Trickett accordingly presented a Bill to require all public authorities and certain regulated companies and organisations providing written means of identification to persons seeking to enter private residences to include braille information about those persons on the written means of identification; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 180].

Pensions Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Pensions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 2nd March 2004, 19th April 2004 and 18th May 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1.   Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	2.   Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
	
		
			  
			 Lords amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments to Part 1 (other than Amendments to Schedules 1 to 4) Thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Amendments to Clause 168; remaining Amendments to Part 2 (other than Amendments to Schedules 5 to 9); Amendments to Parts 3 and 4 (other than Amendments to Schedule 10) Two hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
			 Amendments to Part 5 Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
			 Amendments to Parts 6 to 9 (other than Amendments to Schedules 11 to 13); Amendments to Schedules 1 to 13 Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	3.   Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4.   The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Paul Clark.]
	The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 170.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Pensions Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in a large number of Lords amendments to the Pensions Bill. A full list is available in the No Lobby. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Regulator's functions

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 19, 24, 25, 27 to 29, 33 to 94, 324 to 329, 358, 481 to 498 and 577.

Malcolm Wicks: Before I launch into the first of these very large groups of amendments, it might be helpful if I take this opportunity to remind the House about some of the key points of the Pensions Bill. It is nearly six months since we last saw the Bill at the end of May. Since then, there has been the best part of 70 hours of debate in the other place, which has dealt with more than 1,200 amendments, just over half of which are before us today. The other place likes to describe itself as the revising chamber, but, as will be seen later, we do not always agree with its revisions. In this case, however, its contributions have improved the Bill since we last saw it here.
	Most of the amendments were tabled by the Government. I make no apology for that, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it is because we have listened not only to Opposition spokesmen—on occasion—but to Back Benchers on both sides of both Houses. We are also indebted to outside organisations that have continued to take an interest by providing briefings, suggesting amendments and participating in continued consultation over the provisions in the Bill.
	As I have explained on several occasions, all other things being equal it might have been useful to present the Bill as a draft Bill to allow us to consider some of the technical details. However, all other things are not equal. We are being urged to protect people's pensions—indeed, urged by some to make the pension protection fund retrospective—and we could not afford to delay because of the issues that are at stake.
	The Bill is a good and rounded piece of legislation. It introduces a regulator with teeth who, among other things, will now be able to deal with those who have developed so-called pension liberation scams; provides protection for those who might otherwise lose their defined benefit pensions through no fault of their own if their employer becomes insolvent; and provides an important measure of help for those where that situation has already occurred.
	Over the summer, we worked with organisations involved in helping ailing companies, led by the British Venture Capital Association, to enable us to improve and clarify the provisions relating to moral hazard. Some of the amendments reflect and respond to their concerns. Furthermore, the Bill now reflects other commitments that were taken forward from this House, including representation for pensioner organisations in the nomination of trustees and the removal of statutory limited price indexation for defined contribution schemes.
	I am conscious of the limited time that we have available today for further debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that Members will be disappointed if they are unable to catch your eye during the rest of the afternoon. I therefore commit in advance to keeping my remarks as short as I can when agreeing to amendments in order to allow more time for others to speak.
	Let me turn without further comment to the first group of amendments, which deals with part 1 of the Bill and the provisions relating to the regulator.

Steve Webb: The Minister mentioned the ending of limited price indexation for defined contribution schemes. If I am correct, that will be discussed in the hour or so that we have to talk about annuities under a separate group of amendments. Almost certainly, therefore, there will be no debate whatever about these changes. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable?

Malcolm Wicks: It would always be nice to have plenty of time to discuss pensions. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss those matters, but we have made our position clear and a vote has been taken on the programme motion.
	Several amendments were made to part 1 to enhance the powers of the regulator. We have given the regulator specific powers to tackle the illegal practice of what some call pension liberation but what should, in my judgment, more appropriately be called pension robbery. As hon. Members are aware, pension liberation schemes purport to offer to convert the accrued rights of members of legitimate schemes into an immediate tax-free lump sum. The organisers of these schemes—I should perhaps say scams—target people who urgently need cash and usually charge high commission, ranging from 20 to 30 per cent. of the individual's total fund. An individual could also end up paying as much as 40 per cent. tax on the total amount. Moreover, their provision for retirement is severely reduced, sometimes to nothing.
	Clauses 19 to 22 give the regulator the power to apply to the court for an order that the so-called "liberated" moneys, or property representing those moneys, are transferred back to a pension scheme, put into an annuity or insurance policy or given back to the member concerned. Prior to going to court, the regulator will also have the power to make a restraining order over liberators' bank accounts that contain liberated funds. These are important new powers that will enable the regulator to deal with this nefarious practice.
	There has been particular interest in the moral hazard clauses, which were first introduced in Standing Committee. Clauses 44 to 58 are intended to deal with the moral hazard that employers may deliberately manipulate their affairs so as to leave the pension protection fund to pick up the tab for their underfunded pension scheme. Such practice would both put members' benefits at risk and increase the levy costs of well-run schemes.
	Several concerns were expressed about the scope and effect of the moral hazard clauses. During the debates in the other place, my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis offered further to consult the industry over the summer to review their impact and to try to find practical ways of allaying concerns about the measures. As a result, several amendments were made. A key message was the requirement for the regulator to provide a clearance procedure. That has been agreed and is reflected in clauses 43 and 47.
	Other headline amendments to the moral hazard clauses include: a time limit of six years for which the regulator can consider acts or failures to act before issuing a contribution notice; the exclusion of insolvency practitioners, if acting in good faith, from the scope of contribution notices and financial support directions; and the exclusion of the majority of individuals from the scope of financial support directions. Also, new clause 58 has been added to the Bill to define partnerships and limited liability partnerships for the purposes of the moral hazard clauses.
	There is one further significant change to the moral hazard provisions. Much concern was expressed in the House and in the other place about the regulator's power to issue contribution notices or restoration orders in relation to acts occurring after 11 June 2003, corresponding with the date of the announcement in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government continue to believe that the limited retrospection proposed is proportionate as a matter of law.

John Butterfill: Can the Minister explain precisely what he means by insolvency practitioners "when acting in good faith"? Insolvency practitioners have only one duty, which is to get the maximum amount of money for the creditors. What does the expression "when acting in good faith" mean in that context?

Malcolm Wicks: We assume that insolvency practitioners do act in good faith, given their task. When they do so, they will be excluded from any moral hazard procedures. There is the concern that it might be possible for some practitioners not to act in good faith, perhaps in connivance with others, but if I can provide any further advice on the question later, I will.
	I was saying that the Government believe that the proposed limited retrospection is proportionate as a matter of law, but we accept that there may be some who would seek to challenge it, resulting in the regulator being tied up in court for a number of years, unable to act to protect members or the pension protection fund and benefiting only lawyers. For that reason, amendments Nos. 38 and 71 limit the retrospective effect of both contribution notices and restoration orders to acts or deliberate failures to act, and to transactions at an undervalue that took place on or after 27 April 2004, the date on which the moral hazard clauses were introduced in Committee.
	The amendments to the moral hazard clauses will ensure that the regulator will retain effective anti-avoidance powers, while removing many of the concerns raised about the potential scope and effect of the original clauses. It has also been necessary to make a number of minor, consequential and technical amendments to part 1 of the Bill to reflect its evolvement, ensure consistency and tighten the drafting.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for dealing briefly, as he put it, with some of the Lords amendments. I entirely accept what he said about so-called pension liberation schemes and we welcome the fact they have effectively been shut off as an option.
	There is a sort of Alice Through the Looking Glass quality to the Bill. I remember saying, to the point of almost bleating, in Committee and earlier that if ever there were a piece of legislation that cried out to start its life as a draft Bill and be subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny procedures of both Houses, this is it. For the Minister to say rather ruefully, at this half-past 11th hour, that that might have been the best way forward is absolutely amazing.

Malcolm Wicks: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. What I said was that there was a great demand out there for pension protection now and that is why we needed to introduce the legislation, even if it meant some inconvenience to various colleagues in having to amend the Bill as it proceeded through its stages. The demand was to protect people now and we responded to it.

Nigel Waterson: A broader issue that arises—it is more appropriate to debate it in detail in a later group of amendments—is whether the Government have looked into the issue from the wrong end of the telescope. They should have focused their immediate attention and energies on tackling the problem of people in the here and now who have lost their pension rights, while taking a more measured approach, in respect of time for debate and for implementation, to ensure that they got the Bill right. That was certainly the attitude of the then Government towards the Pensions Act 1995.
	I am afraid that matters are even worse than I described. Not only did we not have a draft Bill—[Interruption.] It is not just a matter of inconvenience. We are all here to do our best and to take however long it takes. We could certainly spend a great deal more than four hours today on these important matters without unduly straining ourselves, but we are not being allowed to because of the timetable motion that the Government have forced through. The guillotine has been used in one way or another at every stage of the Bill's passage.
	I want to discuss the moral hazard provisions, the really crucial part of the group, in more detail. It is not just that there was no draft Bill encompassing those provisions—I am talking about the original provisions—as they were produced at the very end of consideration in the House. As far as I have been able to discover, there was no consultation and no discussion with anybody about whether the provisions were appropriate, workable, and tackled the issues that they were intended to tackle.
	What happened in due course—I shall deal with the issue in greater detail when I move on to specific provisions—is that, having failed consistently to listen to Opposition voices in the House or to consult any relevant outside bodies, professional or otherwise, the Government got themselves in a tremendous mess. They then had completely to abandon their first attempt at moral hazard provisions, go through a consultation process—putting the cart before the horse—and then return with a series of further different provisions to deal with the same problem.
	The Minister was right to pay tribute to the work of the revising Chamber, though in respect of this particular legislation, the task was more than just revision. The Lords laboured long and hard—we could not in the House, as our consideration was finished— to try to get the Bill right. The fact that, as the Minister himself said, the Lords tabled 1,200 amendments, surely illustrates the Government's problems. The Government tabled 450 amendments during the Commons stages, adding 62 new clauses and 81 pages to the Bill. It arrived in the Lords with 310 clauses and 13 schedules and has now developed into a two-volume Bill. We rarely encounter that nowadays, except in the case of a Finance Bill.
	The Bill grew even longer in the House of Lords. Prior to Third Reading, the Government had made 442 further amendments and added a further 16 clauses and 50 pages to its length. On any view, that amounts to an awful lot of afterthought on the part of the Government and their draftsmen.
	Following the Minister, I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Opposition, particularly the official Opposition, in the House of Lords. I am particularly grateful to my noble Friend Lord Higgins. The Bill is still far from perfect, but it has been enormously improved.
	I shall now deal with the moral hazard provisions in greater detail. Personally, I have always taken the view that a more accurate description would be "anti-avoidance". I made the point in Committee, though much good it did me, about the importance of those provisions for the likely shape of the Bill. I went to Washington to discuss the approach with people who had more than 30 years experience of this matter. I also spoke to experts here, particularly people in the City of London, actuaries, lawyers and others. One theme that always came across vividly was that the Government would be well advised to get the anti-avoidance or moral hazard provisions right from the start, because if they were not dealt with properly, they could make a total nonsense of the other, doubtless laudable, provisions in the Bill. It is a tribute to the Government's incompetence that, far from those provisions being the first to be considered and dealt with, they were among the last, at least during the passage through this House.
	The Minister took us through the moral hazard provisions, and he described their effects fairly. We welcome the fact that the time limit involves going back no more than six years, and we are pleased at what was said about insolvency practitioners acting in good faith. In that connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) made a good, practical point. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister deals with that specific question.
	There is a new power to ensure that a contribution notice may not be issued to prescribed people, and a new and reasonable test about the issue of a financial support direction. As I understand it, the regulator will need to be satisfied that it is reasonable to issue an FSD—aficionados of the Bill know that it is truly acronym country—to a person. A number of factors will have to be considered when that decision is made, and in respect of decisions about non-compliance contribution notices. The regulator must consider whether any benefit has been obtained, directly or indirectly, by the person named in the FSD from the employer.
	I turn now to the clearance procedure. Concern has been expressed about what that could turn into, but the regulator must now provide a clearance procedure, and make decisions about clearance as soon as is reasonably practical. That makes considerable sense in what is a fast-moving business environment.
	The regulator will not be bound by any clearance statement if there is a material change in circumstances, or if the circumstances described in the application are not real. Another change of heart by the Government is that most people have been excluded from the scope of the FSDs. We welcome that.
	In sum, we welcome what has been put in the Bill about so-called pension liberation schemes. We think that the moral hazard provisions, as they are called, achieve a balance between different needs and aspirations. The process involved has been unnecessarily long and painful, and we must be grateful for the fact that we have an active and vibrant second chamber. Left to themselves, the Government would never have reached this destination.
	There is nothing in this group of amendments on which we would wish to divide the House. Again, I am grateful for the hard work done in the other place on this part of the Bill.

Steve Webb: We have 672 Lords amendments to discuss this afternoon, and almost all of them are Government amendments. My arithmetic tells me that we have 21 seconds to discuss each amendment. However, in this section of the debate, we have to discuss 183 amendments in 30 minutes, which comes out at under 10 seconds per amendment. That shows the lack of serious scrutiny that will be given to some important matters.
	The amendments propose ways to close what the Minister rightly called scams. It is a source of concern that people can be ripped off in this way, and we welcome this attempt to close the loophole. However, I am worried that legislation passed with the best of intentions but in haste is often repented of at leisure. The short amount of time available for consideration of these amendments means that proper scrutiny is impossible and that there may be unintended consequences. As a result, people who are supposed to benefit from the Bill might suffer from other loopholes created by the attempt to close the particular loophole under discussion.
	When pensions legislation is made in haste, it is often poor and in need of subsequent amendment. I often wonder what the Government would have done to close this loophole if they had not had this Bill going through the House. The Bill has been around for a long time, so the Government have thought that they could just amend it and add to it whenever anything on pensions has popped up. They thought that they could use the Bill to do those things on pensions that they quite fancy doing. Often, changes have been made long after this House had a chance to consider the Bill, so it is difficult to do justice to the 112 amendments in this group and to spot the bear pits that the Government may have created.
	There is no reason why we could not have been allowed time to scrutinise these amendments properly but, for some reason, the Government decided to prevent that proper scrutiny. On behalf of the people whom we are trying to protect by means of amendment No. 1 and associated amendments, I hope that we do not live to rue that lack of scrutiny.
	The people who will lose out are those who find that a large part of their pension investment is taken up by charges and fees when they are sold the products that we are discussing this afternoon. That is what will happen if we do not get the legislation right. Given the cursory run-through from the Minister at the start of this debate, it is difficult to tell whether the amendments will have the desired effect.
	The financial services industry is notorious for inventing new products, scams and wheezes to get around regulations. The Government have produced these amendments like rabbits out of a hat this afternoon. It is very late in the day, so it is hard to have confidence that thought has been given to all the ways in which the provisions might be evaded.
	On the face of it, the amendments look broadly sensible. They attempt to close down undesirable practices and respond to some of the concerns expressed about the Bill. Like the Conservatives, we shall not divide the House on the amendments, although we do want to register our concern that insufficient time has been given for the scrutiny that such important changes deserve.

Michael Fallon: I want to raise again some of the issues that I raised on Report some six months ago about the scope of the pensions regulator. I remind the House of the business interests that I declared then.
	On Report, I said that the scope of the regulator was too wide and that his power to hit individuals was too extensive. I also said that the contributions notices and the FSDs were too wide in scope. The Minister will remember that he brushed those concerns aside. He wrote me a four-page letter on 11 June in an attempt to reassure me, but—to his credit—he began a process of consultation almost from that date. That process has led to the very substantial amendments to the Bill that we are discussing this afternoon.
	It would be churlish not to acknowledge the great deal of work that has been done, but much concern remains. There is a great deal of worry about the position of insolvency practitioners, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) has referred already, and about the position of individual investors, as they can still be caught by the regulator. However, a much more general concern remains that the Bill establishes what amounts to a new business regulator. It will be something like the Office of Fair Trading, but by no means all business transactions are referred to the OFT. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the new regulator will have the resources and skills to deal with what I expect to be a flood of clearance applications.
	Given that anything that could be construed as removing assets from a pension fund could be caught for six years, almost every business transaction is likely to be submitted to the regulator for clearance. The secondary effect on business could be that deals do not proceed unless the full pension fund deficit has been made up. As a result, struggling companies may be denied the opportunity to be taken over by others.
	Therefore, I still need reassurance about three matters, and I hope that the Minister will supply that reassurance when he responds to the debate. First, will he confirm that the regulator will have the resources to deal with the flood of clearance applications that I expect to be put in? Secondly, is not the six-year period too long? I know that it derives from Inland Revenue statute, but I still think that it is too long and that it may have a deterrent effect.
	Finally, will the Minister confirm that the new business regulator that he is creating will not deter the formation, or reformation, of businesses that is characteristic of a healthy economy?

Malcolm Wicks: We have had a useful airing of some of the issues. Those that I cannot cover in the few minutes I have, I will deal with in correspondence.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) queried what I meant about insolvency practitioners. We just wanted to make it clear that insolvency practitioners acting in accordance with their functions under the Act cannot receive contribution notices and cannot receive financial support directions, as they are individuals. We meant nothing more than to clarify that.
	We have had a welcome for the amendments, if at times—we are used to this—a slightly grudging one. There was no early consultation on the moral hazard clauses. To have consulted before introducing them would have given advance notice to those who wanted to avoid pension liabilities. The changes made in the Lords are not radical, but they make clear on the face of the Bill the Government's policy as expressed in Parliament. We are confident that the moral hazard clauses strike the right balance on protecting members, the PPF, levy payers and business interests.
	On the final point from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), it is not our intention to interfere with legitimate and proper business reorganisation. We have to be concerned, however, to prevent people from dumping pension liabilities on the new pension protection fund. What we are doing has been widely welcomed by outside organisations, and I hope that the House will agree to the amendments that we are suggesting.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 94 agreed to.

Clause 168
	 — 
	Amounts to be raised by the pension protection levies

Lords amendment: No. 298.

Steve Webb: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the Government motion to disagree, amendments (b) and (c), Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu thereof, amendment No. 283 and Government amendment (a).

Steve Webb: This is an area in which their lordships substantively disagreed with the Government. The amendments deal with the nature of the levy for the pension protection fund. Their lordships made two substantive amendments in the face of Government opposition when a combination of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and other peers prevailed, as reflected in Lords amendments Nos. 298 and 283.
	Amendment No. 298 proposes that 80 per cent. of the levy should be a risk-based levy as opposed to one based simply on the number of members of a scheme. Amendment No. 283 proposes that part of the definition of risk will include the risk that the firm become insolvent, and not merely that the scheme itself is underfunded. It seems entirely proper that there should be a substantial risk-based levy and that the definition of risk should have some regard not merely to whether the fund is underfunded but whether the firm is likely to become insolvent, thereby triggering a claim on the fund.
	My reading of the Government's amendments to those amendments is that the Government have largely accepted that argument. I am sure that the Minister will clarify the position, but I understand that the Government broadly accept the principle of an 80 per cent. risk-based levy and of allowing the insolvency risk of the firm to be a determining factor, among others, of the risk-based premium. My understanding of Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 283 is that the Government are giving themselves, or the PPF, the power to exempt certain firms from consideration of insolvency in assessing the level of the risk-based premium. Provided the Minister can assure us that that power will be used sparingly and can give some flavour of the circumstances in which it would be used, I have no objection in principle to the idea that using the solvency risk to the firm might not always be appropriate. We welcome the fact that the Government seem to have accepted the general principle.
	That said, I have a number of concerns about how things will operate. I hope that the Minister can clarify a point that remains not entirely clear even after their lordships' discussions. As I understand it, after the transition to a risk-based levy, firms will have the opportunity to move to the risk-based levy more or less straight away. However, firms will still have the option, even if we accept the Lords amendments or the Government's versions of them, to put off for several years the evil day when a risk-based premium arrives. That is my understanding of where we will leave the Bill today; if I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. I think that firms will still be able to say that they do not fancy a risk-based premium and that they will still go for the flat-rate premium for as long as they can.
	Clearly, that creates some bizarre features. If my understanding is right, and if one draws an analogy with car insurance, we are effectively saying that people who drive middle-of-the-road family cars—a Ford Escort, or something like it—can say they would like a risk-based premium because they are not much of a risk and realise they will pay a low premium. On the other hand, Ferrari drivers—and the Ferraris of the pensions world—will be able to say, "Heck, we may face a very high risk-based premium, so we will put off the evil day for as long as we can and will stay with a flat-rate premium."
	That seems perverse. If the Ferrari drivers are, in effect, creating a bigger potential call on the fund, and if we do not introduce a levy reflecting that risk, there will be some cross-subsidisation. Essentially, the safe drivers—the low-risk pension schemes—will subsidise the high-risk ones. Will the Minister make it clear whether that is indeed how things will work? Can high-risk schemes put off the move to a risk-based levy? Can he justify that? Now that the Government have accepted the principle of an 80 per cent. risk-based levy, as they have in their amendments, it seems odd to say that high-risk schemes will not have to pay it for several years.
	Amendments (a) to (c) are intended to respond to the concerns expressed by Baroness Hollis when she responded in the other place to the Opposition's first attempts to amend the Bill. One of her first responses was to say that there is a problem in applying a risk-based levy to small schemes. As we know, the vast majority of occupational pension schemes are small, with small numbers of members and relatively small assets. There would therefore be a disproportionate cost on the schemes if we required small ones to provide information for the calculation of a risk-based levy and on the PPF from working out the insolvency risk for tiny firms—perhaps even one-man or one-woman firms—especially if the risk simply reflected the fund's being underfunded, which is information it would probably have anyway, but there was also a risk of the small firm going to the wall. Trying to do that for hundreds of thousands of small schemes would be disproportionate.
	Baroness Hollis registered that as an objection to the whole principle of an early move to a risk-based levy, advancing that as an argument for why it should not be done at all. The Government have now accepted the principle of a risk-based levy, however, and, aided by the National Association of Pension Funds in drawing up our amendments, we say that small schemes might be exempted. Amendments (a) to (c) set out a definition of a small scheme, and we have referred to a scheme with fewer than 100 members. I must admit that when I first saw our amendments—the Minister knows what I mean by that—I was surprised that 100 was chosen as the threshold, but, as the National Association of Pension Funds points out, at 31 March 2003 schemes with fewer than 100 members accounted for around 60 per cent. of the defined benefits and hybrid schemes that will be eligible for the PPF. By setting the threshold at 100, we are freeing the PPF of the obligation to work out risk-based premiums for 60 per cent. of all schemes, which is a substantial concession in the spirit of Baroness Hollis's objections.

Michael Fallon: Has the hon. Gentleman calculated what the loss of revenue in levy not raised would be from that 60 per cent. of schemes?

Steve Webb: There would be no loss, because those 60 per cent. of schemes would make the same total contribution to the levy—on a pro-rata basis, not on a risk-based basis. Our amendments would not change the balance of the burden between big and small schemes, but they would reduce the disproportionate bureaucracy—for both the schemes and the PPF—involved in calculating a risk-based levy for small schemes. The levy could be per head or some other pro rata arrangement.
	Although the amendments mention 60 per cent. of schemes, they would affect only 1 per cent. of members of schemes. The amendments would save huge amounts of bureaucracy, but 99 per cent. of members would still be covered by a risk-based levy. That is the neat combination that would be achieved by amendments (a), (b) and (c).
	In the other place, Baroness Hollis said, in objecting in principle to a risk-based levy, that
	"there will be a number of extremely small eligible schemes that are required to pay the levy—applying an extremely complex risk-based calculation to schemes, which might have 10, 20 or perhaps 40 members, would be a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and providing the required information may be overly burdensome and costly for the scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 490.]
	The House will accept that we have gone further even than the noble Lady suggested by relieving the PPF of the burden of that work for schemes of up to 100 members. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, given that generosity of spirit and the attempt to address the concerns of the noble Lady.
	I believe that the noble Lady last night expressed concern that the amendment had been tabled late in the day, but one of the reasons for that was that the concerns about small firms had been used as an argument to resist risk-based levies. The Government only last night accepted the principle of risk-based levies—it was not until we saw today's amendment paper that we learned of the Government's amendments to Lords amendment No. 298—and our amendment is a tidying-up amendment.

Nigel Waterson: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that he had seen the Government's amendment before tabling his amendment?

Steve Webb: No, I am saying the opposite. Once we knew that the other place had defeated the Government on the risk-based levy, we received representations from the National Association of Pension Funds, which, while it agreed with the principle, was concerned about its application to small schemes. The association helped us to draft amendment (a), which we tabled last night. Since then, it has become apparent that the Government have accepted a risk-based levy in principle, which we welcome.
	I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. It would be a shame to divide the House on them, although we will do so if necessary. The changes the amendments would make are in the spirit of something that the Government argued not so long ago only a few yards away. My understanding is that although the Government disagree with Lords amendment No. 298, the long list of Government amendments (a) to (k) are designed to replicate the spirit of the Lords amendments, albeit slightly more efficiently. I do not have a problem with that and, in principle, we do not have a problem with Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 283, on the assumption that the Minister can tell us what it means when it refers to
	"any prescribed scheme or scheme of a prescribed description".
	That is one of those phrases that could mean anything and before we give it the nod we need to know whether the Government envisage widespread exemptions or very limited ones. In principle, however, we are minded to be sympathetic to that amendment and we hope that the Minister will accept our amendments in the spirit that they were intended, as he has accepted the spirit of the Lords amendments.

Malcolm Wicks: In essence, there is now little between us on this issue, but it is such an important part of the Bill that I need to approach my explanation with care. An Opposition amendment was made on Report in the other place to replace clause 168 with a new clause. We disagree with the amendment made in the other place, but have tabled an amendment in lieu.
	The amendment made in the other place had four main objectives—to require the board to collect at least 80 per cent. of the levies estimated to be raised via the risk-based pension protection levy; to require the board to ensure that the amount collected via the scheme-based levy has a value that is no greater than the administration costs; to require the Secretary of State to lay regulations before Parliament before any changes are made over the proposed levies that the PPF board could collect in any given year; and to impose restrictions on the levy ceiling and the increase in pension protection levies from year to year, so that they apply from the end of the initial period, rather than from the end of the transitional period. That would mean that during the transitional period the board would not be able to increase the amount of the levy collected by more than 25 per cent. from year to year. I understand that that was the intended effect of the amendment. However, clause 171(1)(a) would still allow the levy ceiling to be modified during the transitional period. However, let us not worry about that technical defect.
	We disagree with the amendment made in the other place for the following reasons. We do not believe it right that Parliament should have to approve changes to the amount collected through the levies. We have made it clear throughout our discussions that it is critical that the PPF can operate independently at arm's length from Government. That was an important lesson that we learned from US experience of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, where changes must be approved by Congress and where, as a result, no changes have been made since 1991. It is a fundamental principle in our approach that the PPF should operate without undue political interference, and that is why we created different controls through the imposition of a levy ceiling and the 25 per cent. rule.
	From the outset it was our intention that, during the transitional period, the amount raised by the board through the pension protection levies should be controlled by the levy ceiling only and not by the 25 per cent. rule, which applies from the second financial year after the end of the transitional period. If the board was constrained by application of the 25 per cent. rule during the transitional period, its only option might be to collect the £300 million that we anticipate will be needed from the end of the transitional period in the first financial year after the initial period, even if that turned out not to be necessary. That might be the only way that the board could ensure that the PPF could meet its liabilities in the subsequent year.
	On administration costs, the intention of the amendment seemed to be that the scheme-based levy should be used to collect administration costs for the PPF. We do not think that that is a sensible approach. It is crucial that a clear distinction be drawn between the PPF income that is used to pay compensation and the income that is used to pay administration costs. That is also important so that Parliament can scrutinise the PPF accounts, and is in line with the way in which most other non-departmental public bodies are funded. I should also be clear that the amendment does not achieve the intent I have described. Instead, the effect would be simply to restrict the amount that could be collected through the scheme-based pension protection levy to the same level as the PPF's administration costs.
	However, we do recognise the importance of risk in setting the levies, and that is perhaps the crucial point. We have always made it clear that the levies should be predominantly risk based and that we might expect the PPF to collect 80 per cent. from the risk-based levy. We recognise the concerns that have been raised, however, and the importance of the issue for well-funded schemes with a strong employer covenant. We therefore propose an amendment in lieu, with a provision to increase the amount collected through the risk-based levy to 80 per cent. of the estimated total to be collected, through a concession.
	If we disagree with the amendment introduced in the other place, some consequential technical amendments would have to be made to the original clause. Those amendments would result from amendments made to clause 166 on Report in the other place, requiring the board to set both a risk-based pension protection levy and a scheme-based pension protection levy in relation to eligible schemes from the end of the transitional period.
	In this group we are also considering the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). Amendments introduced in the other place require the board to set a risk-based levy for all schemes. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would enable the board to make exceptions to that rule and set only a scheme-based levy for small schemes, defined as those with under 100 members. The intention would be to ensure that it would not be necessary for the PPF to undertake a complex and costly assessment of risk to collect a relatively small amount of money. We fully agree that there are possible problems surrounding small schemes and the calculation of the risk-based pension protection levy; the Government raised the same concerns throughout the progress of the Bill, and when the Opposition introduced the amendments in question.
	There are, however, a couple of problems with the amendment. It provides that the board may set only a scheme-based levy in relation to small schemes, provided that the amount the board estimates will be raised from those schemes in aggregate is the same as the amount that would have been raised from them if a risk-based pension protection levy had also been imposed. It seems that in order to estimate the amount that would have been raised from schemes via a risk-based pension protection levy, it would be necessary to undertake a risk calculation in relation to those schemes—the very process that we are trying to avoid due to its cost implications.

Steve Webb: I understand why the Minister makes that point, but the burden comes from working out the figure for individual schemes; all the proposal requires is that the aggregate be the same. It is possible to estimate the aggregate without working out the figure for each scheme.

Malcolm Wicks: I am genuinely puzzled about how one could work out the aggregate without the sum of the parts.
	For the reasons I outlined, we tabled an amendment to the amendments introduced in the other place, which would reduce the burden on the PPF and small schemes to provide an accurate calculation of risk. Our amendment provides a regulation-making power to enable the PPF to disapply the requirement that insolvency risk be taken into account when setting the risk-based levy. We intend to use that regulation-making power to exempt small schemes from the consideration of insolvency risk. We consider that that approach is in keeping with the spirit of the amendment tabled in the other place, which required the board to impose both levies, so that the risk-based levy is imposed in respect of all eligible schemes. In that sense, our approach may go further than the hon. Gentleman's amendment by still requiring a risk-based levy to be in place for all schemes, but it will allow the board to calculate risk much more simply for small schemes. The board would thus have to consider underfunding only to determine the risk-based element, information on which will be provided anyway by all such schemes through PPF valuations. The amendment not only allows burdens on schemes and the PPF to be kept to a minimum, but also ensures that the levy paid by all schemes will reflect at least some assessment of risk. Our approach should go a long way towards meeting the concerns expressed by the Opposition and the NAPF, without undermining the principle of the amendment in the other place—to apply a risk-based element for all schemes.

Michael Fallon: I think the Minister's comments will be welcome. Will his definition of a small scheme be the same as that proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Can he clarify that point for the House?

Malcolm Wicks: I can clarify that it is also our definition of a small scheme.
	In summary, I urge the House to disagree with the amendment introduced in the other place, and to accept the Government amendments to clause 168 that we propose in lieu. The amendments will restore clause 168 to the Bill, but with a change to require that 80 per cent. of the estimated total collected by the levies should be collected via the risk-based pension protection levy. They also make some changes consequential on the amendments made in the other place.
	I urge the hon. Member for Northavon to withdraw his amendment relating to small schemes and to support instead the Government amendment that we propose to the Lords amendments to clause 166. To recap, that will have the effect that, in relation to prescribed schemes, the PPF may disapply the requirement that insolvency risk be taken into account when setting the risk-based levy.
	In response to some specific questions put by the hon. Gentleman, yes, it is the case that firms will be able to opt for a risk-based levy as soon as they want, but— this may disappoint him—they do not have to move to risk-based levies until the triennial valuation falls due. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but there is a question of judgment about how we phase in such things and whether it would be appropriate—we think it would not—to require a scheme to bring forward, no doubt at some expense, its triennial valuation. That is a matter of judgment, not of great principle, and that is our judgment. If the valuation falls within the transitional period, the firm would not have the choice of deferring until a later date.
	When well-run funded schemes opt into the risk-based levy, the PPF will need to decide how to charge schemes that have been left outside. It is extremely likely—although it will be a matter for the board—that schemes that do not opt in will have to pay higher amounts as a result, especially as the PPF will want to incentivise schemes to enter the risk-based levy as soon as possible. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the advice he received from the NAPF. It is my understanding that the association recognises the concerns we have raised about the amendments it suggested initially and that it welcomes the Government's approach in response to those amendments, which combines the principles of fairness and administrative simplicity. The NAPF— a great friend of the Government—will of course want to work with the PPF board to put the regulatory framework into practice in a proportionate way.
	I hope that after those explanations the hon. Gentleman might consider withdrawing his amendment and supporting our amendments.

John Butterfill: First, I remind Members of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests; I chair not only the parliamentary contributory pension fund trustees, but also the trustees of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals pension fund.
	I have one or two queries arising from the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and the Minister. I am concerned about the way in which the risk element will be assessed. Will the Minister further clarify that? A triennial valuation would make obvious any deficiency in the fund and the extent to which it would need to be remedied, and I see no particular problem with that. However, if I heard the Minister correctly, it is the intention that, in assessing the risk-based levy, the employer's financial viability will also need to be taken into account. What will be the criteria for that?
	The hon. Member for Northavon implied that large schemes might be safer than small ones. However, when we recall Enron we might consider that large schemes were not safe at all. In many cases, the greatest risks may arise from very large companies. How do we assess that? Do we say that the asset base of the company is sufficiently large to give us reassurance? On the other hand, we all know that a couple of years of disastrous trading can quickly erode an asset base. We only have to look at what has happened to the market rating of large companies such as Marks and Spencer recently to see how quickly things can turn around. Therefore, will the levy itself be constantly reassessed according to the assessment of the financial viability of the employer, or will that be assessed only on a periodic basis, and what will the assessment be?
	What will the situation be for charities? The Minister will appreciate my concern about this in respect of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. We have a relatively well-funded scheme, which substantially exceeds the MFR valuation. It does not meet the 100 per cent. solvency test, but very few schemes do. However, there is no trading record in respect of charities. They certainly will have some assets, but the amount of assets tends to be regulated by the charity commissioners. We have to satisfy the charity commissioners that, for example, we are not holding back too much by way of assets to the detriment of using that cash and those assets for our charitable purposes. We hold back, by way of reserve, about one year's operating expenditure, so that if all our charitable donations dried up we could still keep going without anything coming in for a year; that has been accepted by the charity commissioners. If, however, the regulator did not regard that as satisfactory, the Government would have to talk to the charity commissioners to see whether they would allow charities to hold greater reserves in the light of their pension liabilities. The Minister may wish to consider that further and come back to me at a later date, but it is certainly a very relevant point as far as charities are concerned.
	The other problem with assessing the viability of charities is that one never knows how much income there will be in any one year. We at the PDSA have become rather good at forecasting what it will be; a lot of our income derives from legacies that we know will be coming to us, so we can make fairly accurate predictions of our legacy income over the next few years. Other charitable income, however, from charity shops or appeals or all the other available funding methods, are subject to much greater fluctuation. To what extent might charities be penalised because they cannot show a trading record in precisely the same way as a firm can? That will be a concern to the whole charity sector.

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the PDSA and the point that he raises about charities, given his involvement with the PDSA; we hope that later there will be fewer animals at risk, but that is another debate. In terms of the risk of firms, the board must consider underfunding and it must consider insolvency risk, but other criteria will be up to the PPF board.

John Butterfill: I am grateful to the Minister for that. It does seem to me, however, that given the range of risk that will have to be assessed—not just the viability of the fund but the viability of the employer—the process may take quite a long time to complete. Is the Minister satisfied that the present timetable that he has set out will be adequate for that purpose?

Michael Fallon: It would be churlish not to recognise that the Minister has moved on the question of the percentage of the risk-based levy, and I think we would all welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) has raised a very valid point about charities, because it perfectly illustrates what I think will be the problem under this legislation—regulatory overload. I suspect that in essence, what will happen is that the regulator will have to confirm the trading position of a charity and will be drawn into dialogue, presumably in this case with the charity commissioners, but in other cases probably with the Financial Services Authority and who knows what else, and we shall have one regulator chasing another regulator round and round the block.
	It will not quite do for the Minister to say that every conceivable transaction has to be registered, and will not be officially cleared, in case of any change of circumstance, for the whole of a six-year period, and then to say—presumably in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West—that this particular issue will not take too long to resolve. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
	Finally, on small schemes, I would certainly support the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on exempting small schemes if there is no element of cross-subsidy involved. That was the purpose of my question to him, and he has given me an assurance on that. I suspect that we would support what he has put forward and I hope that he may be comforted by what the Minister has said in reply.
	There is one element of the Minister's reply that I would like him to reflect on, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill. He did say that it was his intention to invite the regulator to disapply. I think that that will be in the guidance or, eventually, in the regulations. An awful lot is being left to the guidance and there are a lot of people outside the House who will have no comfort from these debates until they see that guidance and see the form of regulations that will flow from the Bill. I wonder whether, if not now, at some stage in our proceedings, the Minister will be able to clarify what he means when he says, "it is our intention that"; does that mean that he will be publishing guidance in draft, between the passing of this legislation as an Act and the setting up of the regulator and his powers coming into force, or are we simply going to be confronted, as usual, with a great pile of regulations?

Nigel Waterson: I have a mental image, which I have shared privately with the Minister recently, of the Minister haring up the road to Buckingham palace at the last minute, dashing the pen from Her Majesty's hand before she signs the Royal Assent and saying, "Your Majesty, we have had a final thought on this and we would like to change things just a teeny little bit—tweak things just a fraction to get the Bill right." I cannot get rid of that image. I used to think that it was a joke, but I am beginning to wonder.
	We have just heard something extraordinarily revealing from the Minister, which confirms my impression that, from start to finish of the Bill, he has been making it up as he goes along. He has revealed a new bit of policy that has suddenly emerged—unless I just failed to spot it on a previous occasion, although I noted that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was equally taken aback.
	We did manage to extract rather painfully from the Minister in Committee that in fact it could be 2009—although he did hotly contest the idea that it could be 2010—before we had an all-singing, all-dancing risk-based levy system applying across the board. He referred to the question of triennial reviews and he did confirm, as I understood it, in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Northavon, that it was possible for schemes to opt in early, as it were, to the risk-based levy. Presumably, the other side of that coin is that they can put it off as long as it suits them within the 2009 ceiling.
	Then suddenly there emerged the brand new idea that the PPF would somehow produce a yet further basis for charging some schemes, completely outwith anything that has been debated in the House or the other House, to incentivise some of these schemes to opt in sooner than they might otherwise. We have to ask, in all seriousness, is the Minister simply making it up, or is there some developed policy thinking on this, and if so, why does it not feature in the hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments and new clauses that have been pouring out of the Department ever since the Bill saw the light of day?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman refers to schemes choosing whether to go for the risk-based levy or the flat-rate levy, but is there not a further paradox? Presumably, the scheme must guess what its risk-based levy would be, which is related to that specific scheme's features. So the scheme may not even know what its risk-based levy might be, and it will therefore inject greater uncertainty into the Government's proposed voluntary approach.

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I seem to remember that, in Committee, we as the official Opposition made a kind of rough and ready interim proposal, not unrelated to the MFR, to try to get a risk-based levy up and running sooner rather than later. That was airily dismissed by Ministers, but it at least had the attraction of being more immediate in its application. There is a real problem, but we can be sure that those schemes that face perhaps the greatest risk in reality will be those that are most careful about calculating whether they will be better off staying outside for as long as possible. There is a real worry, and not for the first, the second or the hundredth time, I find myself having to respond to something that is brand new and has just come barrelling out of the blue this afternoon without warning and with no paperwork attached.
	Before I move on to the central questions involved in the risk-based levy, I wish to touch on the smaller schemes issue. I take on board some of what the Minister says and some of the things said in the other place about the practicalities; but, on balance, we understand the force of what is proposed by the hon. Member for Northavon, and subject to anything further that I hear from the Minister or any other hon. Member, we would be minded to support the hon. Gentleman if he presses his amendment to a vote this afternoon.
	I cannot help reflecting on the fact that, just for once, the exasperation expressed by Baroness Hollis in the other place only yesterday was justified when she made the point that Lord Oakeshott had indeed argued against such a proposition in Grand Committee and on Report. She said:
	"When I tried to make that key point on behalf of the Government, it was not acceptable. However, when, beyond the appropriate time, the NAPF takes exactly the same line as the Government, we hear that amendments may be moved in the Commons."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1221.]
	I dare say that it is not unusual for the Liberal Democrats to change their minds on any number of issues, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that they seem to have done a bit of gymnastics on this issue.
	I shall come now to the key matter. I never know whether this is appropriate, but to be on the safe side, I suppose that I should declare a possible interest in that I have private pension provision, as I have indicated in, I think, all our previous debates on the Bill. We in the House and our colleagues in the official Opposition in the Lords have always had three basic concerns about the risk-based levy. First, the initial levy period should be limited to one year. In other words, as soon as is humanly possible, we should have a risk-based levy, and I shall return to some of the major reasons why in a moment.
	Secondly, we want to ensure that, after the initial period, the pension protection levy should comprise both risk-based and scheme factor components. As has been said already, we have consistently, certainly in Committee, looked for the greatest possible definition of risk, so that we consider not just the risks to the scheme of underfunding as well as the nature and quality of a fund's investments, but the likelihood of the sponsoring company's insolvency in respect of any scheme, as the hon. Member for Northavon said.
	The third major issue, which the Government are clearly now accepting—although in a sense the Minister did so in Committee, and I shall return to that in a moment, as I would not want to seem to misrepresent his position—is that the highest possible proportion of the levy should indeed be risk-based. We argued successfully in the Lords for an 80 per cent. figure.
	Those have always been our major concerns about the Bill, and I shall explain in a little detail why we think that they are important issues. Before the Bill ever saw the light of day, when it was in what passes for its gestation period, I took the trouble of going to Washington to met Mr. Steve Kandarian, the then executive director of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the body on which the Government claim that they are modelling the pension protection fund, although that is not the case in a variety of respects. The Government have diluted the model—if one can dilute a model—in a number of important respects, not least of which is that the so-called guarantee offered by the PPF is nothing like as secure as that offered by the PBGC.
	Leaving that aside for a moment, Mr. Kandarian, who has since visited London, having ceased to be the executive director, and lectured on these issues at Imperial college, was adamant about a variety of things, one of which the Minister touched on: the importance of not necessarily leaving it to the legislature, particularly in election periods, to decide to increase the levy. Mr. Kandarian was adamant in his discussions with me and, I suspect, with anyone who was prepared to listen to him—I am sure that that included the Minister and his officials, as they prepared the Bill—about the need to have a risk-based levy from the very outset. Indeed, it was a number of years before the PBGC started to pay out benefits, as it gradually built up its funding since its founding in 1974. Mr. Kandarian was very clear that a proper risk-based levy was needed from the start, and he also spoke with some regret that, when the original model was set up in 1974, it was not fully risk based because it did not include all the components of risk that I spoke about earlier. We have always taken the view that that must be an important part of the Bill because it seemed sensible to take some note of 30 years' experience on the other side of the Atlantic, and it became even more important the more we considered the Bill.
	I shall briefly refer to the evidence on these issues that Mr. Kandarian gave to the United States Senate when he was still the PBGC's executive director. He said:
	"When PBGC takes over underfunded pension plans, financially healthy companies with better-funded pension plans end up making transfers to financially weak companies with chronically underfunded pension plans. If these transfers from strong to weak plans become too large, then over time strong companies with well-funded plans may elect to leave the system."
	That is what we are talking about. We can dress it up and call it moral hazard or any number of fancy terms, but the reality is that if the Bill, despite having changed shape in so many important respects, is supposed to protect the members of existing defined-benefit schemes in this country, while encouraging not only those schemes to continue to be open to new members, but perhaps new schemes even to start, the last thing that we want is to deter employers who might be considering opening a new scheme or keeping one open to new members. That is clearly a problem.
	If we tell well-run schemes and well-run companies that, for a significant period, they will end up paying a flat-rate levy that is not fully risk-based—in effect, the good will subsidise the bad—perhaps some of the less well-run, more risk-based schemes will be able to continue to opt out for as long as possible from the whole scheme, despite the new bit of policy that we heard about just a few minutes ago,
	In America, as Mr. Kandarian went on to say in his evidence, there is
	"a flat-rate charge of $19 per participant, and a variable rate premium of 0.9 per cent. of the dollar amount of a plan's underfunding, measured on a 'current liability' basis."
	His great regret, which he explained to me and others, was that the system was not got right from the start and that regret is encapsulated in the example of Bethlehem Steel. It resulted in the largest single claim in the history of the PBGC. However, Bethlehem Steel paid no variable rate premium for five years prior to termination despite being drastically underfunded on a termination basis. That flags up the enormous importance of ensuring, as we have consistently said, that the risk-based levies are in place early on.
	In fairness to the Minister, what he said earlier—apart from the new bit of policy—only reflects what he said in Committee. It emerged that he conceded that, because of the practicalities involved in bringing in a fully risk-based element, it would not come in for three or four years. That obviously took me by surprise, because he refers to me grimacing from a sedentary position. He added that
	"if a scheme chose to bring forward the three-yearly valuation, presumably to benefit from a lower risk base, it could do so."
	However, the hon. Member for Northavon pointed out that this could end up without a proper insurance scheme covering all funds until 2010. The Minister responded—somewhat in annoyance, as I recall it—by saying that that was certainly not the case, but added:
	"The three-yearly valuation cycle takes us to 2008, so the full risk-based levy could be introduced for all schemes at the end of the process by 2009"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 April 2004; c. 560, 568.]
	The Hansard report shows that that remark was followed by an "Interruption", I am not at all surprised.
	There will be a significantly longer period for all schemes to pay a fully risk-based levy, but the position gets worse. We heard only recently that the burdens on the PPF at its inception are increasing rather than decreasing. We will spend more time on that when we come to a later group of amendments, but I think of the statement the other day about schemes such as that run by Turner and Newell. They still might be dealt with retrospectively under the PPF even if there were a significant event before April 2005.
	There have been strenuous arguments on all these issues. I think that the Government have accepted most of them and, in particular, the argument about the figure of 80 per cent. It is important to point out that the National Association of Pension Funds has been clear throughout that it wants the highest possible proportion of risk element in the way that the levy is calculated. It says:
	"NAPF would like the PPF's risk-based levy to be at least 80 per cent. of the total funds raised, in order to minimise moral hazard. The initial transitional period when there is only a flat rate levy should not extend beyond a year."
	The fact that we need to debate this issue in the Lords or this House is slightly curious. In Committee, the Minister said that
	"we consider that an appropriate split in due course could be—although it is up to the board—about an 80 per cent., 20 per cent. split in favour of risk factors."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 April 2004; c. 588.]
	There has never really been a lack of common ground between the two sides on the 80 per cent. issue. This is all about whether the Government have been prepared to include that figure in the Bill. Baroness Hollis put it rather well when she said:
	"I, too, support the amendment: I just cannot accept it."
	That struck us as slightly bizarre. She also coined the memorable phrase when she said that, in the early stages, there would be a
	"mixed economy in which all schemes will have some scheme-based levy and others will carry, by choice, a risk-based element. It is clear that insofar as the good companies seek the risk-based element in the hope of reducing their premium, this will have"—
	this is an important admission—
	"an adverse selection effect on the scheme-based levy for the rest."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 485, 497.]
	That is the point that the hon. Member for Northavon made. Some good companies will clearly be disadvantaged by the long run-in to a fully risk-based levy right across the board. We think that that is wrong.
	The good news is that the Government appear to accept the 80 per cent. figure and that we should be moving as rapidly as possible to a fully risk-based levy. We still think that they could do more to tighten up the time scale, but we do not propose to divide the House on the main issue. We think, however, that there is sufficient merit in the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and we do not think that it should be dealt with in the way that the Minister suggested. The amendment makes a clear point that should be included in the Bill, so we urge the hon. Member for Northavon to pursue it. We are prepared to support him in the Lobby.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), and it is only right that I respond briefly to some of the questions that have been raised about the amendment and clarify what it will and will not achieve.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about my noble Friend Lord Oakeshott, who pointed out in another place that the effect of the risk-based levy on small schemes was not a reason for rejecting an 80 per cent. risk-based levy. That point has been missed. Baroness Hollis has used the effect on small schemes as a reason for not having such a levy at all. That reason has now gone, because the Government have now said that they will accept the 80 per cent. rule. We can therefore modify it to deal with the legitimate concerns that she raised. It was not a fatal objection, but it needs addressing.
	I listened to the Minister's response, and I am now puzzled. He said that the Government propose that every tiny scheme will have a risk-based levy based only on the underfunding and not the insolvency risk. That means, however, that every small scheme might have a unique level of risk-based premium. Such a proposal is vastly more complex than it needs to be. Every scheme will have to have an individually assessed risk that is based, admittedly, on information that will presumably be gathered anyway. However, if we are to do the job properly and assess the level of risk in a particular scheme based on the position of the fund—I shall be interested in the thoughts of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) on this—we do not necessarily need precisely the same information to assess the level of underfunding as we do to assess the risk arising from that underfunding. For example, there may be a given level of underfunding on a particular definition at a particular point in time, but the likelihood of two schemes with identical levels of funding at a snapshot making a claim on the scheme may vary greatly depending on the asset mix or something like that.
	Assuming that we fail with this amendment, the PPF board will have to make an individual calculation for every single—even one-member—occupational scheme and the PPF will not just need the information that it collects anyway. I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister on that point, because it is important. As I understand it, for the PPF board to work out the risk-based levy on small schemes even just based on the funding in the fund will require more than the information that it collects anyway. To do the job properly, there is the realistic prospect that it will require further information, such as information about the asset mix. That could create serious administrative burdens on small schemes.

John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; he is entirely correct. The question that I raised earlier was how far we go in pursuit of the information. How do we assess the viability of small firms without the benefit of international credit ratings to assist us? A detailed examination of the accounts and the current state of play of individual employers may be required. The amount of work involved in that is huge.

Steve Webb: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of such matters. As he says, it would be difficult to assess the insolvency risk of such small firms. To be fair to the Government, as I often am, the thrust of Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 283 is the exemption of small schemes from the need for a calculation of insolvency risk. However, even a risk-based element that is based on the funding of the PPF will put an unnecessary burden on small schemes.
	The Minister pointed out what appeared to be a paradox in the amendment's wording, although I hope that I have reassured him about that. To go back to the point that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks made, we would exempt small schemes from a risk-based element, so we would not change the balance between the overall burdens on smaller and larger schemes.
	The Minister asked how we would work out what small schemes would have paid as a risk-based premium if we did not make individual calculations for each scheme and suggested that that would create the problem that we were trying to avoid. However, if I may draw an analogy with car insurance, it is perfectly possible for Direct Line to work out the average risk of Ford Escort drivers without calculating the risk of each individual Ford Escort driver, which will vary. The company knows the average risk for the group, so it does not have to work out each person's risk. It would not be a problem to work out the aggregate risk-based premium for small schemes, and thus ensure that the overall burden would not change. The calculation would be simpler than that envisaged, so it would put less burden on the PPF and small schemes. As the bureaucracy would be less, there would be a smaller overall burden—a smaller levy—which is what we all want, so I am somewhat puzzled about why the Government want to go down their route.
	I was astonished by the Minister's response to my question about the ability to make a choice about whether to be insured according to risk. The idea that people who are a bad risk may choose to pay a different and lower premium for an insurance scheme is bizarre and implies that cross-subsidisation would occur.
	The Minister came up with an extraordinary ad hoc suggestion—although I think that he was reading it—that firms that did not adopt the risk-based element as soon as possible would be incentivised to do that. Which aspect of the Bill gives the PPF the power to do that? It can set a scheme-based levy based on the number of members in a scheme, but can it change the levy to penalise the bad guys who do not adopt the risk-based option? The Government seem to be making things up as they go along. The Minister told us at the start of his speech that the PPF will be independent of the Government, so the Government could not make the fund do that. Has he drawn up any guidance for the PPF? Will he ask it to encourage people to adopt the risk-based levy?
	If the Government think that it would be good to get people on the risk-based levy, why do they not make them do so? If that measure would result in a proper insurance scheme more quickly, the Government should implement it. They say that they want to incentivise people, but where will the money for that come from? It would be bizarre to give people an incentive to adopt the risk-based scheme, and thus presumably pay a higher premium. Perhaps we will pursue the matter through a written question, because although I would be happy to give way to the Minister, he does not have the opportunity to make a speech in which he may explain himself.
	We welcome the fact that the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 298 accept its spirit. However, Liberal Democrat amendment (a) to the Lords amendment deals with a point about small firms that Baroness Hollis raised. The amendment would achieve something that the Government should try to do, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
	Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 13, leave out from first "The" and insert "Subject to subsection (4A), the"—[Mr. Webb.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment No. 298 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 298 agreed to.

Clause 106
	 — 
	The Non-Executive Committee

Lords amendment: No. 95.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 96 to 120, 122, 123, 125 to 130, 132, 133, 135, 137 to 144, 146 to 150, 152, 153, 156, 160, 162 to 165, 167, 169, 171 to 179, 181, 184 to 196, 198 to 208, 211 to 218, 221 to 223, 227 to 230, 232 to 246, 248 to 256, 258 to 260, 262 to 270, 272 to 277, 279 to 281, 284 to 292, 294 to 297, 299 to 303, 306 to 323, 330 to 345, 384, 388 to 397, 399 to 401, 499 to 523, 525 to 538, 540 to 542, 544 to 551, 554, 555, 558, 563, 565 to 567 and 569 to 576.

Malcolm Wicks: I want to offer a brief explanation of the Government amendments on the pension protection fund, which were tabled in the other place. On compensation, we have introduced a set of amendments to cover court orders made against a pension scheme following divorce or nullity proceedings. The amendments enable the PPF to honour attachment, earmarking and pension-sharing orders made before the end of the assessment period, and in particular to implement pension-sharing orders made before the end of the assessment period but not implemented before the board assumes responsibility for the scheme.
	Following representations made in Standing Committee, provisions have been extended to provide compensation to surviving unmarried and civil partners. We have also included regulation-making powers to enable us to ensure that survivors' payments will be made only where there was provision to pay survivors' benefits under the scheme.
	Other provisions allow for compensation to be paid to members whose scheme characteristics differ from traditional defined benefit models, for example, cash balance schemes. That is a response to changes in scheme design as employers seek to share risk with their employees but still offer attractive pension benefits. Further changes have been made to ensure that members who have been in their pension schemes a short time are treated fairly. Amendments will replace the current statutory priority order on wind-up with a new one when the PPF commences business. The priority order will be aligned with PPF benefits to ensure that if a scheme has been through a PPF assessment period but has not transferred into the PPF, scheme members receive broadly what they would have done had the scheme gone into the PPF. The Government's view is that it would be unfair for people to be entitled to significantly less on winding up than they would have received had the scheme gone into the PPF. The same priority order will apply whether a scheme starts to wind up owing to the insolvency of the employer, or does so while the employer is solvent. The objective remains to ensure that the limited assets available are distributed fairly between all scheme members during a scheme wind-up.
	Moving on to the PPF's entry rules, changes have ensured that insolvency practitioner notices have no effect until they have been verified by the board. Because of the importance of those notices, we have made that verification a reviewable matter. The board will also be able to modify certain insurance contracts to ensure that no one receives more than the PPF level of compensation. Further amendments have ensured that schemes that become ineligible during an assessment period are still able to enter the PPF if necessary— for example, to cover the situation when there is a two-member scheme in an assessment period and one of the members dies. We have also protected the PPF against certain compromise agreements and, in the light of industry concerns, have ensured that the board's powers in insolvency proceedings do not exceed those of trustees. We have also taken a regulation-making power to ensure that, in the valuation of a scheme, the PPF will take account of any contribution notices and financial support provisions put in place by the regulator using its moral hazard powers. Without those amendments, the PPF could be called upon to assume responsibility for schemes which, had they been taken into account, could have been wound up outside the PPF to the benefit of members.
	On levies, the Opposition have introduced amendments limiting the initial period to 12 months and requiring the board to set both the scheme-based and risk-based pension protection levies. We have revised the non-executive functions for the PPF board in response to Opposition's concerns, so that they include only remuneration and the review of financial affairs. Other functions that were previously listed as non-executive functions become subjects for inclusion in the board's annual report. Rules governing the investment strategy of the PPF board have been amended to ensure that the interests of levy payers and scheme members are taken into consideration.

Steve Webb: I am aware that the Minister has only a few minutes—nine, I think—to deal with this huge group of amendments. He is working through them systematically, but the group deals with an important matter that I fear he will not reach. Does the group contain amendments relevant to his written statement of last Monday and his press release of last Thursday about schemes in the gap year and the scope of the financial assistance scheme and the PPF in relation to schemes that become insolvent now? Will he clarify the position of schemes in the 12-month period—the gap year? Do they go into the FAS or the PPF, or can they go into either?

Malcolm Wicks: The relevant amendments are in this admittedly rather large group. Our concern was to ensure that we took a comprehensive view across the piece so that people could be protected as Parliament intended. We hope and assume that the PPF will come into force in April, subject to the will of Parliament. Let us suppose that an insolvency event affecting a scheme occurs before April—the company goes into administration, for example. We are now stating clearly in the legislation that scheme members should not be prevented from benefiting from the PPF as long as there is a second insolvency event—for example, the company goes into liquidation—after April. If there is a second insolvency event, a scheme can be covered by the PPF, subject to other criteria. A scheme that is totally wound up before April, however, will not be subject to the PPF.
	The other announcement that we were able to make last week is that the financial assistance scheme will cover what some call the gap year—the period to April next year—as we intended. We were concerned about moral hazard issues, but we are now satisfied that they cannot arise. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister make it clear that if a first insolvency event occurs in the gap year, the company will have some incentive to delay the second insolvency event until the PPF comes into force, because it is more generous than the FAS—that, in principle, a scheme that enters administration now might hold on for the PPF because it gives scheme members more? Is that how it will work?

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to write to the Opposition spokesmen about this important matter. Despite our initial doubts, having consulted a number of people we are now reassured that such manipulation—delaying until after April—cannot take place. That is why we felt able to make the announcement we did.

Nigel Waterson: I agree that this is an important issue. Yesterday in the Lords, Baroness Hollis was at pains to say that the Minister's statement a few days ago made no real difference; it was merely a clarification. However, when the information was leaked or announced to the press, it was presented—or spun, if one prefers—as good news for, for example, the Turner and Newell pension scheme. Either it makes a difference or it does not, but the noble Lady's suggestion that it makes no difference to the potential liability of the PPF must surely be wrong.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not wish to refer to any particular scheme, although I have to say that some of the news on one scheme might be looking better than it was. However, surely even the cynics accept that, together, the two announcements are good news, because it means that, subject to the criteria being satisfied, scheme members in defined benefit schemes will now be covered, one way or another, either because we have extended the FAS to the start of the PPF or because we have now covered cases in which a second insolvency event occurs after April. Fair-minded people should welcome that news.

Andrew Miller: Following on from the same point but looking back in time, when does my hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the date on which the Government propose to commence the financial assistance scheme?

Malcolm Wicks: I have said that the scheme will be up and running in the spring.

Andrew Miller: I apologise to my hon. Friend—I was not clear enough. I was asking about the earliest date from which pension schemes can be eligible to claim from the scheme.

Malcolm Wicks: We are engaged in a secondary exercise to collect precise data from schemes. Although hon. Members have particular interests in certain schemes, I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are dealing with perhaps 250 schemes and that the data-gathering exercise is complex. He will therefore understand that I am not yet in a position to answer his question.
	Given the interest in this matter, we felt it important to make the announcements last week because it had come to our attention, from a number of people within the pensions industry, that some pension scheme trustees were unaware of how the Bill's provisions would operate. We felt it essential to confirm the position to enable trustees to make more informed decisions about the future of their pension schemes. It is very much that concern that enabled us to rethink the advantages and disadvantages. We thought that there were advantages in the announcements, which is why we were able to proceed in that direction.
	I appreciate that there is a good number of amendments before us and that we have relatively little time to deal with them. I am happy to have been sidetracked—I do not mean that pejoratively—into these important issues. With those remarks and with the interventions that have been made, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Steve Webb: We are dealing with a large number of amendments and I want to refer only to those that we have been talking about that relate to the FAS and the scope of the PPF.
	One of my concerns is that the Government are not getting best value for money out of the wind-up of the schemes. Schemes are winding up now and the assets are being used to buy deferred annuities. People will then be left with a substantial shortfall, some of which will be made up by the FSA scheme. I plead with the Minister, in the seconds that we have available, to look again at the issue of allowing schemes to close through poor value deferred annuities, thereby leaving the FSA scheme having to make up a big gap.
	Would it not be better to take those assets as a going concern not into the PPF, but into some form in which they could be carried on? That would mean that there would be less of a burden on the FSA scheme, which is already overburdened. There is a danger that it will be even more overburdened by the announcement that the Minister has just made.
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
	Lords amendment No. 283, as amended, agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 96 to 282, 284 to 297 and 299 to 358 agreed to.
	Before Clause 229

Removal of compulsion to take annuities

Lords amendment: No. 359

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I obviously know all the amendments off by heart, but I had briefly forgotten the significance of Lords amendment No. 359, although it is of considerable interest to the House. Mr. Speaker has brought it to the attention of the House that the amendment involves the question of Commons privilege. It relates to financial matters where it is the role of the Lords to agree not to initiate or to amend.
	The effect of the amendment is to alter the taxation arrangements made by the Commons: it allows annuities not to be paid where they might otherwise be paid; it extends tax relief by allowing more people in some circumstances to pass their tax privileged pension pot on to their survivors tax-free; it allows in some circumstances for contributions to be made to pension schemes beyond the age of 75; it reduces the instances when part of the tax relief given to contributions is recouped when an annuity is paid, and so on. The House can waive its privilege but I think that it is inappropriate to do so.
	I shall explain the proposed amendment and its background further. It is similar in intent to one that we in this House have previously rejected in Committee. It is also a topic that has been endlessly debated in this House as a result of a number of private Members' Bills and during the progress of this year's Finance Bill.
	The present rules on annuities mean that members of personal pensions schemes and small defined contribution occupational schemes must purchase an annuity with their pension fund by the time that they reach the age of 75. Members of occupational pension schemes are required to receive a pension, rather than purchase an annuity at the age of 75.
	The intention behind these rules is to ensure that pension pots are used to provide a stream of income in retirement. Personal pension schemes will purchase an annuity and occupational pension schemes usually, but not always, provide a pension from the scheme rather than for the purchase of an annuity. Members of pension schemes benefit from more favourable tax treatment than other savers. Tax relief is provided at the pension scheme member's marginal income tax rate so that, in effect, he saves the gross amount and not the net amount of income into his pension pot.

John Butterfill: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, but I want to make some progress. The House needs to hear the whole story.

John Butterfill: I am sure that the Minister did not wish in any way to mislead the House. That is why I am grateful that he has taken my intervention. There are other savings schemes that are equally tax privileged. I am thinking about enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts. There are a number of other schemes that involve quite significant levels of tax relief in terms of savings schemes that do not have the lock-up that pensions do. I do not think that the Minister would be completely accurate in saying that these reliefs were not available to other savings schemes that are open to the public.

Malcolm Wicks: Let me make some progress. I think that I will be able to cover some of those issues.
	The contributions grow in a tax-favoured environment when invested. There is also the tax-free lump sum on vesting a pension, which adds to the favourable treatment. That can be up to 25 per cent. of the value of the fund and is recognition by the Government that people need encouragement to lock away their money for a considerable period until they are ready to draw retirement benefits.
	Those tax reliefs are then only recovered when the pension fund is converted into an income stream either by taking a pension or purchasing the annuity. That can happen as early as age 50 under present rules but must happen once the member reaches the age of 75. I recognise that there will be a debate about the cost-benefit tax analysis of that against other savings vehicles but our argument would be that this is a tax-privileged area for savings for retirement.

Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend give way now that he has interrupted himself?

Malcolm Wicks: I welcome my right hon. Friend to our proceedings and I am happy to give way.

Frank Field: There is probably no one in the House who is arguing that people should be able to unlock their funds before they are retired, and having done so then make a claim on welfare. That is surely the issue that we are addressing in the Lords amendment.

Malcolm Wicks: Indeed. If I come to the end of my script and give a better balance, I think that my right hon. Friend will be able to stay until the end.
	The amendment from another place would remove the requirement on members of personal pension schemes and some occupational schemes to purchase an annuity—and thereby secure an income stream—by the age of 75. However, there is a proviso. That is that only those who can "demonstrate" that their existing resources mean that they can avoid any reliance on means-tested benefits are allowed the privilege of not having to purchase an annuity. At any one time, and for any one individual, it is quite difficult to say what level of resources might be required to avoid entitlement to the income-related benefits. However, I can assure the House that the amounts involved are far in excess of the amounts that most people saving into personal pension schemes have in their pension funds. Furthermore, to ensure that the individual continues to avoid entitlement to the income-related benefits the annuity would have to be index-linked. There are therefore several ironies. First, for the vast majority of annuity purchasers, the Lords amendment would create a far more restrictive environment than currently exists and, secondly, it would undo the liberalisation that we are seeking to achieve on index-linking elsewhere in the Bill. It will benefit the top 3 or 4 per cent. of annuity savers and in particular the 1 per cent. with pension funds in excess of £250,000, should they attain the age of 75 without purchasing an annuity.
	Independent research shows that most people buy their annuities when they retire and even those who do not do so still purchase their annuity well before the age of 75. The paper by the Association of British Insurers entitled, "Annuities—The Consumer Experience" shows that, of people who retired in the past two to three years and purchased an annuity, 95 per cent. did so before the age of 70. The ceiling of 75 for annuity purchase is clearly not a major problem for the vast majority of annuitants. It certainly is not for my constituents nor, I suspect, those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Lords amendment would certainly not benefit the vast majority of pension savers, because 80 per cent of pension pots are worth less than £30,000—a sum significantly and substantially less than the funding needed to be above income-related benefit.
	The Government recognise the underlying issues of greater longevity and demographic shifts in this country and, indeed, across the developed world, both of which have profound implications for the way in which our pensions policies are put into effect. The Government are taking action through the Bill and in other ways to meet those and other challenges. We set up the Pensions Commission under Adair Turner to review the regime for UK private pensions and long-term savings. Its first report, published last month, provides a mine of detailed and valuable information on the demographic challenges that we face. It is a singular fact that we are debating whether to preserve one of the few elements of compulsion in our pensions structure, but the Pensions Commission was set up specifically to look at the effectiveness of the voluntary approach to pensions and whether there is a case to move to greater compulsion. The commission is considering whether the level of compulsion within the UK pension system is appropriate. For people investing in a pension, the requirement to purchase an annuity at 75 with tax-privileged saving is a compulsory element in the existing system. Once the commission has reported on the wider issues relating to compulsory saving, the Government will wish to consider key issues, including annuitisation at the age of 75, with particular care and urgency, and decide whether they remain fit for the purpose.
	It should be clear by now that the Lords amendment is not appropriate, although we acknowledge the evident interest shown by the other place. The amendment would specifically benefit people who do not need to buy an annuity while requiring the less well-off to subsidise them through income taxation.

Steve Webb: The Minister has ruled out scrapping the age limit of 75, but does he accept that, since it was introduced, male life expectancy has risen from 65 by more than five years, contrary to what Baroness Hollis said in another place. Is there therefore not a case for raising the limit to at least 80?

Malcolm Wicks: I can only repeat what I said earlier. The Government will wish to consider key issues, including annuitisation at the age of 75, with particular care and urgency, and decide whether they remain fit for the purpose. That is as far as I can go.
	The Lords amendment is not appropriate, but we acknowledge the high level of interest in the issue. We are, as I have just shown, prepared to respond constructively and promptly, including on the specific issue of annuitisation, as a priority once the Pensions Commission has reported.

Edward Garnier: The Minister should not allow himself to think that interest in this matter was confined to the other place. He acknowledged that it had been discussed on previous occasions in the Commons, but he seems to have found it inconvenient to remind himself that, on 7 March 2003, the Retirement Income Reform Bill, which I had the honour to introduce in the House, completed its Second Reading with a majority of 101. It is therefore the settled will of the Commons that Lord Higgins's proposal in Lords amendment No. 359 should come into law. The Minister is a great supporter of the supremacy of the House of Commons, so perhaps he could be consistent and argue for it in this case as well.

Malcolm Wicks: I had better not comment on the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment that that was the settled will of the House. That may have been the case on a rather quiet day, but there are more than 100 Members in the House, as we will demonstrate later. However, I have said that we will look at the specific issue of annuitisation as a priority once the Pensions Commission has reported. I acknowledge the interest shown by the House, both in this issue and in pension matters that affect the other 99 per cent. of the population.

David Willetts: The Minister has just made a tiny concession, although it required a trained eye to spot it. Indeed, that is why he had to repeat it for the Liberal Democrats. However, it will not quite do the job. It would be helpful if he explained what the Government will look at after Adair Turner reports. Can he give a firmer commitment, particularly on the age limit for buying an annuity? I am afraid that I do not regard what he has said as a significant concession, given the weight of opinion in both Houses. There was a substantial vote in the other place last night, because their lordships feel strongly about the issue. I do not have any expertise on matters of privilege, but there is a strong belief in the other place that privilege does not apply in the way that the Minister suggested.
	This is not just a matter for the other place. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, Members of the Commons feel strongly about it as well. I am grateful to him for reminding the House of the heroic moment when the Government suffered a defeat on Second Reading. We fondly remember that great moment, which was a reminder to the Government of how strongly people feel about annuities. The fact that the vote took place on a Friday shows how much the Opposition care about the subject, because we were all willing to turn up to support our hon. and learned Friend who, like my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), introduced a private Member's Bill on retirement income.
	I shall not rehearse all the arguments in favour of the Lords amendment, because a tight programme motion is in operation. I shall therefore comment briefly on some of the things that the Minister said. First, a simple point of principle is at stake. Why should we pass regulations in the House telling adults what they should do with their savings provided that the taxpayer does not have a direct interest in the result? Once we have covered that angle—the Lords do so successfully in their amendment—it is not legitimate for us to tell people what to do. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, the proposal inserted in the Bill in the other place achieves that neatly and simply by specifying that there should be no requirement to buy an annuity by the age of 75
	"provided that the pensioner can demonstrate that he has resources to ensure that he will not become dependent on means-tested benefits."
	Beyond that simple proviso, what right do we have to tell people what to do with their money?

John Butterfill: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I thoroughly agree that, provided that we can demonstrate that there is no call on the state, people should be free to do as they wish? Can he imagine an independent financial adviser telling someone that they should put all the money for their retirement into an annuity? Does he think that the IFA would be performing his duty as a financial adviser if he did so?

David Willetts: That is a very good question. I sometimes fear that, as we get into these pension debates, I may occasionally find myself straying into giving financial advice without being regulated to do so. Given my hon. Friend's expertise on the subject, he makes a powerful point that I hope the Minister will take into account.
	The Minister argued that the people who convert into an annuity do so significantly before they reach the age of 75, so the requirement to convert at the age of 75 cannot be a serious obstacle. That is my summary of his argument, but the evidence from a survey by Watson Wyatt rather undermines that argument. The evidence was that there was a group of people who wished to convert into an annuity and they did, it is true, by and large do so before reaching the age of 75. However, there was a large group of people who had no desire to convert into an annuity—59 per cent. of pensioners had no desire to move into an annuity at all, and 12 per cent. said they would do so later. It is not that people are up against a deadline. There is a significant group of people who do not want to convert into an annuity. Another group may wish to do so earlier. It is not for us to tell them.
	We have already had one concession from the Government, aimed particularly, as we understand it, at Plymouth Brethren to tackle their ethical objections to annuities as they are currently constructed. If the Government can be flexible for that group, why can they not be flexible for the rest of the population? The Minister needs to address that argument.

Frank Field: Should the Government not be doubly flexible on the matter? Plymouth Brethren lobbied me, as they no doubt lobbied other Members of Parliament. In representing their views, we knew that they would not be voting for any of us. There are large numbers of other people who are affected and who would vote.

David Willetts: It is perhaps a reflection on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view of the world that one does not have to be a Plymouth Brother to take advantage of the concession that we are told is for Plymouth Brethren. The concession is potentially rather wider than we were told it was intended to be. Even when the Chancellor makes a concession, he does not want to admit how big it could be. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right. It could extend way beyond the Plymouth Brethren. As far as I know, the Government have not imposed a religious test before people take advantage of it—yet. Who knows? There are still another 24 hours and the Government may well amend the Bill further. They are only up to 950 amendments so far.
	I shall touch briefly on the argument that the amendment would affect only a small number of rich people. The point was made in the other place by the Minister there, as the Minister for Pensions has just reported to the House. The Minister in the other place said:
	"We estimate that about 1 per cent. of all annuitants . . . would have an annuity worth more than about £250,000 that would therefore float them into being able to take advantage of this amendment".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1233.]
	I wonder whether the Minister remembers our exchanges in oral questions just over a year ago. I invited Deborah Cooper of Mercer's to do a calculation on how much money someone needed to build up a sum of capital to pay them an income that would be sufficient to keep them off means-tested benefits throughout their retirement. The figure that she calculated was £180,000. I put that to the Minister, who said:
	"The example presented by the shadow Secretary of State was specific, very long-term and assumed that the couple were not owner-occupiers, which would not be typical of elderly households, so I dispute its usefulness."
	He went on to say:
	"What the figure might be depends on a wide range of assumptions, but bringing forward a figure that is in denial of owner-occupation, which is the common experience of pensioners, is not at all helpful."—[Official Report, 20 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 358–9.]
	We had an estimate of £180,000, which I thought was pretty high and a reminder of how shockingly extensive means-tested benefits have become. The Minister did not accept the figure of £180,000. The Government are now using an even higher figure of £250,000 to stop any movement on annuities by saying that anybody with a saving of less than £250,000 would not benefit from the amendment.
	The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot reject £180,000, a figure suggested to him in the Chamber only a year ago, and suddenly say for the purposes of annuity reform that the figure is even higher. I paid great attention to what he just said. He seemed to be willing to endorse a figure of £250,000, which I think is a very high figure. Let us assume for a moment that it is right. After the exchanges on annuities over the past few days in another place, I am tempted to say that, from now on, we know from Ministers that means-testing is so extensive that people need not £180,000, but £250,000 as a sum of capital to keep them off means-testing in their retirement.
	Let us assume that the £250,000 that the Minister has just endorsed is the correct figure. He thinks that that tells us we should not reform annuities. I think that it tells us that we need to reform the benefits system. It is not an argument against annuity reform. It is an argument in favour of tackling mass means-testing of pensioners. That is why the policies to which we are committed, and which, in a different form, the Liberal Democrats also believe in, are aimed at reversing the number of pensioners who are on means-tested benefits and ensuring that that very large figure starts to fall. That is the best way of tackling the problem.

Malcolm Wicks: I had better not let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. He is obviously limbering up for the debate on hunting. What he says is misleading. I was not implying that £250,000 is what people need to avoid a means test. He knows that I did not suggest that. Perhaps he could pay more attention to the 80 per cent. of British people with pension pots worth less than £30,000. Whatever the merits of his argument, does he concede that he is speaking—as can happen on certain Benches—about a very small privileged group of well-off people?

David Willetts: I am happy to accept another intervention from the Minister if he has further and better information. We know the size of the individual pot, but we do not know how many pots an individual has. The Minister does not know how much, on average, an individual has. All he is measuring is the size of specific pots. It is perfectly possible for someone to have two or three personal pensions in specific arrangements. Sadly, one of the problems of personal pensions is that they are fragmented. It would therefore be wrong to regard that figure as the total amount of money held, on average, by an individual.

Adrian Flook: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. The Minister may not be speaking of the figure of £250,000, but the noble Baroness in another place said precisely that £250,000
	"would therefore float them into being able to take advantage of this amendment"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1233.],
	so the Government have collective responsibility for the figure of £250,000.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister was trying, in his previous intervention, to escape from the figure of £250,000 but it is clear how the figure has been used in both Houses to justify the Government's position.

Edward Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's arguments about large pots being required to bring people into a reasonable income have been put to us time after time? I am sure that we heard them in the context of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), and perhaps later in connection with the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). One would have thought that, by now, the Government would have provided us with the information from the Treasury or the Department for Work and Pensions, having done the research to find out how many separate pots people had in order to accumulate a sufficiently large pot. Moreover, just because we cannot help everybody, is it the Government's case that we should not help anybody at all?

David Willetts: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I would have wanted the flexibility that we offer in the amendment that the Government are trying to remove to extend to as many people as possible. That is why, as I was arguing, we believe in reforming the benefits system so that there is less means-testing. As we do that and reverse the spread of means-testing, and as the value of the basic pension increases, fewer and fewer people will be excluded from that flexibility by the requirement. Accepting the amendment introduced in the other place, and even accepting at face value the Minister's argument that people need £250,000 to avoid means-testing, confirms to me that we should be energetic in trying to reverse means-testing.
	We shall divide the House if the Minister attempts to reverse the amendments made in another place. I do not regard the concession, if concession it be, that he made about the terms of Adair Turner's report as rising to the strength of feeling that has been shown in both Houses on this very important subject.

Frank Field: May I briefly add three points to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Although we are debating annuities, we are also debating the nature of government and our belief in it.
	First, although my hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that in his view few people in Birkenhead would benefit from the proposal, both he and I might be surprised by the number of people in Birkenhead who would benefit. The Minister and I learn from our constituents, but that is not the only way in which we gain policy ideas. Sometimes we must make policy decisions that do not arise directly from our constituencies, and this is one such case.
	Secondly, one of the Labour party's goals is to spread wealth as far as possible, and not to see wealth confiscated. The arguments about the privileges by which people built up their pension pots are difficult, but as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) quickly told us, people who build up other pots of savings are not required to cash them in at the end of the day. Although the proposals may affect only a few people, the Government have deployed the weak argument that the proposals will affect annuity rates, because there will be a rush out of the annuities market, but that there is no need to worry because almost nobody will be affected.
	It is a matter of principle: as far as I am concerned, the principle is that we should, at all times, allow people to keep their wealth rather than deciding what is best for that wealth. Way back at the beginning of my political career, I believed that we should have been the party that introduced the sale of council houses, and that was in favour of spreading wealth. Because we did not drive the policy, the funds were not used to replenish the housing stock—we all know what happened because we did not lead that reform. We must learn that lesson and apply it to this particular reform, which is about giving people freedom over their savings.
	Thirdly, the Government and the Opposition parties are feeling their way to a new consensus on pensions. Even 10 years ago—certainly 20 years ago—we had extraordinarily high hopes for what the Government could achieve for everybody on pensions, but now our objectives are much more limited. All the Government's energy should be spent on ensuring that everybody is brought up to a minimum pension provision. What people do above that is not our concern, and we should not try to put our sticky fingers into people's private affairs.
	In conclusion, first, although some people in Birkenhead would benefit, that is not the only reason why one should vote on the proposals; secondly, the Labour party should be about spreading wealth, not confiscating it; and thirdly, we must think about what the Government can do well and concentrate on that, rather than meddling in affairs that we continually get wrong.

Steve Webb: I normally pride myself on speaking for the poor, marginalised and dispossessed, but occasionally I keep in with the well-off, and this is one such occasion.
	I accept that we are discussing relatively small numbers of people and relatively large pension pots, but as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said a moment ago, that is no reason why the regime should not be rational and sensible.
	The Minister's arguments are woefully thin. The freedom not to annuitise has always been subject to two caveats: first, that one does not then make a claim on means-tested benefits, which is dealt with explicitly in the amendment; and secondly, that the tax take is eventually obtained. The Minister is worried that people will pick up tax relief when they pay in, tax relief on the fund and a tax-free lump sum. However, one does not get a tax-free lump sum until the money is taken out. It is not the case that when someone picks up a tax-free lump sum the taxpayer does not get their share, because people do not get a tax-free lump sum if they do not annuitise. I cannot see the relevance of the tax-free lump sum. On death, a 35 per cent. tax rate applies to uncashed pension pots, so the taxpayer potentially takes a beneficial stake compared with a tax-free lump sum being taken and the rest of the pot being taxed as income. The taxpayer may make a gain, and it is hard to see the potential loss.
	If the Minister will not abandon that principle, in the spirit of new Labour, he surely wants to modernise it. In 1976, the age limit at which that provision bites was raised to 75 for particular sorts of pensions. Yesterday, some discussion occurred in the other place about the relationship between that threshold and life expectancies. Undoubtedly unintentionally, Baroness Hollis gave the other place the misleading impression that the life expectancy in years for a man of 65
	"is now about 16, so far as we can tell."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1231.]
	However, the Turner report states that the figure is 19 years, which is the most up-to-date estimate. That point is significant because, since the age threshold was raised to 75, male life expectancy has risen not by three and a half years, which is the impression that Baroness Hollis gave to the other place last night, but by six and a half years, which makes the case for raising the age threshold from 75 to 80 compelling.
	Today, my noble Friend Lord Oakeshott has written to Baroness Hollis asking her to correct the record, and I hope that she will do so. The substantive point is that freezing the threshold at 75, which the Government want to do, will make the provision bite more and more. When the threshold was first introduced, a good number of men would not have made it to 75. With substantially enhanced life expectancies, more and more people are being covered by the annuity rule.
	A moment ago, the Government hinted that next summer, after the election, they might think about the threshold. Surely the electorate deserve better than that—they deserve to know the Government's plans. The amendment does not change any of the arguments of principle. I agree that the restriction is not necessary in principle, and if the framers of the legislation and its amenders in 1976 intended the provision to apply to a particular proportion of the retired population, keeping that threshold up to date with changes in life expectancy would not even undermine the Government's principle.
	I know that several other hon. Members have, like me, pursued the issue over a number of years, and I am sure that the House would like to hear from them. However, I share the view taken by my noble Friends that the annuity rule is altogether unnecessary. At the very least, I ask the Government to reflect on whether raising the threshold might go a good way to addressing some of the concerns that have been expressed.

John Butterfill: I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) just said—he made some extremely valuable points.
	In some cases, it would be in the Exchequer's interest to agree to the relaxation. When I introduced my private Member's Bill, I received many letters from all over the country. One chap wrote to me a few months before his 75th birthday. He did not have a wife—he had no dependants at all. He had built up a substantial pension pot over the years and was required to buy an annuity with it. Had he died before his 75th birthday, the Exchequer would have received a significant chunk of his pension pot, but because he had to convert it into an annuity, the Exchequer got a bit of the 25 per cent. that was left, and all the rest of it went to the insurance company that sold him the annuity. As far as the Exchequer is concerned, requiring people with a short life expectancy to convert at 75 is absolute madness, and the Chancellor would be far better off letting such people carry on with their arrangements.
	Such an approach would also benefit some people with small pension pots. For example, somebody with a small pension pot who has a wife and family and who knows that he is suffering from a terminal illness may find that annuitising works to his disadvantage, particularly if he has a policy with a guaranteed annuity rate, which he will lose unless he converts. However, if he converts, just over half of his pot will go to his wife—if they bought a joint policy at a reduced rate. Somebody in that position may be able to leave more to a spouse by not annuitising and hoping that he will live long enough to reach the relevant age.
	The figure of £30,000 or £40,000 that the Government give is a complete myth, because most people have other savings beyond that. Probably the largest element will be their house, from which they may already derive an income through a home income plan. They may have all sorts of other savings that they have accumulated through personal equity plans, tax-exempt special savings accounts and other vehicles. Yet the Government clearly have no idea, because if one asks them what the average level of total savings for any individual is, they have no statistics on which to give a reply.
	It is completely wrong to say that this will apply only to very rich people and not to those with only modest pension funds. In the course of modern life today, many people have been through several careers. At some point, they may have been self-employed and paid into a pension fund, while at other times they may have been employed and the beneficiary of a company pension scheme. They may have had small businesses that they have sold and invested the funds in other ways. People have retirement income from all kinds of sources. It is demonstrably wrong to say that this will affect only the very rich, not those with modest pension pots, and completely unreasonable for the state to tell somebody that, when they reach a certain age, 75 per cent. of their savings must be invested in an annuity at a time when annuity rates are at an all-time low and almost any other form of saving will give them a higher return.
	Another person who wrote to me was, like me, a chartered surveyor. Being a shrewd chartered surveyor, he had invested cautiously but successfully in commercial property through a self-administered scheme. As a result of his expertise, his fund had built to a very substantial sum and was showing a return of 20 per cent. on the money that he had put in. He told me: "At age 75 I'm going to have to sell this property on which I'm getting a 20 per cent. yield and put that same lump of money into something yielding me about 5 or 6 per cent." Is not that potty? I rest my case.

Edward Garnier: The example of the chartered surveyor cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) exemplifies the silliness of the Government's antipathy towards the amendment tabled by my noble Friend in the other place, which has two advantages: first, it is written in simple English that anybody could understand; and secondly, it would work. The Government's argument that it would benefit only a very small number of very well-off people is designed to terrorise Labour Back Benchers—other than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who are completely impervious to terror—to dissuade them from supporting it. The Government think that if they can persuade their supporters that this is rich man's racket, they will agree that it must be a jolly good thing to knock it down. I suspect that neither the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), nor the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), who argued against my private Member's Bill from the Front Bench, nor anyone else who has thought about this for more than a moment, could possibly argue against the common sense and good sense of my noble Friend's amendment.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead is entirely right to identify the main principle and the growing consensus across the Floor of this House with regard to the pensions question. The amendment would provide grown-ups with choice and, as along as they maintained a level of income that did not allow them to resort to means-tested benefits, nobody would lose. The problem is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like any idea that is not his own. The reason why the Department for Work and Pensions, which he no doubt thinks is subordinate to his Department, is having to advance a particular argument is that the dead hand of the Treasury is forcing it to take that line.

Frank Field: I have noticed that my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows his brief as well as anyone, agrees with an argument, hardly ever looks at his notes, but when he knows that he has to deliver a script he reads them closely.

Edward Garnier: Interestingly, when the right hon. Gentleman intervened on the Minister earlier, the Minister asked to be allowed to finish his script. I do not know who writes the Minister's script, but he certainly read it extremely well.

Malcolm Wicks: My analyst will of course write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead about that perverse observation.

Edward Garnier: I hope that when he has done so the Minister will keep taking the pills.
	I want the public to be given a choice that enables them to make provision for their own old age. If they want to choose an annuity, let them do it. If they want to buy equities, let them do it. If, like the chartered surveyor who contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, they want to buy a portfolio of properties, let them do it. The amendment, like my Retirement Income Reform Bill, has the advantage of being gender-neutral and would provide an answer—if not a complete one—to the growing deficiency in the savings ratio that we have experienced over the past few years.
	The Government have a perverse order of priorities. When my Bill achieved its Second Reading by 101 votes, the Government put up a Back-Bench Member, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who spoke for about an hour and a half—it seemed longer—to try to talk it out. He failed. Yet when a Conservative Front Bencher in the other place tables a short, understandable and sensible amendment, and we are permitted to discuss it here, the debate is truncated by Government diktat. The Government must sort out their intellectual approach to such issues, quite apart from the way in which they manage the business of this House.

Adrian Flook: The private Members' Bills promoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) were very much along the lines of a Bill that I promoted, and another similar Bill was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). All four Bills were perfectly formed around the idea of removing the annuity age barrier of 75 and introducing a minimum income guarantee. The Government dismissed that suggestion out of hand in the course of several debates. I was therefore pleased to see how neatly my noble Friend Lord Higgins incorporated our private Members' Bills into his amendment in a specific, one-sentence clause.
	The removal of the age barrier of 75 receives cross-party support from everywhere bar the Government. For that we have to thank the Retirement Income Reform Campaign under the leadership of Dr. Oonagh McDonald, a former Labour Member of Parliament. Whenever we debate this principle, we are inundated by letters from pensioners and those looking towards their retirement who are extremely worried about being compelled to take an annuity. The Minister suggested that only a small number of people are concerned, but there is great demand for such legislation. It is therefore extremely comforting that the Lords voted by a considerable margin for an amendment that would give effect to the private Members' Bills that have been introduced three or four times in this House.
	The Minister said that there is not much demand for these provisions, but Lord Higgins pointed out in the other place that 58.8 per cent. of people asked in a survey never wanted to annuitise their pension pots, with 12.1 per cent. wanting to do so later than required at present. That amounts to quite a substantial 70 per cent. who do not agree with the way in which the Bill is formulated. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Bill does not address the problem, which will only worsen. A number of large blue-chip companies in this country have defined-benefit schemes that can only be described as dying. More are looking to move out of a defined-benefit scheme and into a defined-contribution scheme. If we do not deal with the problem of annuities, their unfairness and the age barrier, the position will get worse.
	As a Conservative, I do not believe in compulsion. I believe that the current position does not work at all. As we have heard, it forces pensioners to annuitise three-quarters of their pension at the age of 75, which is old-fashioned and anachronistic. It is not followed anywhere else in the world and I cannot see that the singular benefits of the British system provide any reason to continue it.
	The other problem with the current system is that it sets up an unbreakable contract for the remainder of the life of the annuitant. As we heard so eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, there is usually only a single provider. The Minister, who I am sure wants to spread the risk, must acknowledge that relying on one insurer, such as Equitable Life—we have seen what has happened there over the past few years—promotes and imposes a moral hazard on pensioners. The Bill thus appears entirely arbitrary, given that the same size pension fund can buy widely varying incomes, depending—this is the key point—only on the date of purchase.
	The current position also introduces sex discrimination into retirement income. As the Minister knows, annuitants are forced to take the price that is offered to them, which unfairly varies from male to female. It does not happen with the state pension or with defined-benefit pensions such as those that MPs and civil servants enjoy. It is particularly unfair that women are being discriminated against as a result of the Government's refusal to act.
	There is a further problem with the current system, which the Lords amendment is designed to address. Occupationally defined contribution schemes are limited by their index linking—sometimes at about only 3 per cent.—which poses the risk of inflation. When it comes to inflation, even the Chancellor cannot determine that he has completely rid us of boom and bust.
	The virtue of the scheme proposed by the Lords is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West explained, that it protects the interest of the state while providing much greater freedom. It provides the state with more revenue, as the pension funds remain invested in a range of financial instruments, allowing them to grow. They can then be taxed, as and when. In other countries such as Canada, there is no obligation and retirees can choose to put their pension funds into a retirement income fund managed on their behalf, over which they have control. If it is good enough for Canada, it should be good enough for pensioners in Britain. This is a principled and practical amendment that the House should support.

Malcolm Wicks: We have had an interesting debate and a rehearsal of the issues, many of which are familiar to the House. I am feeling quite nervous because my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) implied that it is only when I look up that I agree, and that when I am reading I do not. May I say for the record that I agree with every inch of Government policy? That is what it says here in my brief anyway.
	I cannot add a great deal to what has been said already. For the record, I note that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made a demographic point about different estimates of longevity. Perhaps he will receive a written reply, but I understand that the difference relates to different measures of life expectancy. My noble Friend in the other place used one measure and Lord Oakeshott used another. I am advised that, on a standardised basis, the difference is about one year, so there is not that much to get excited about, even though the hon. Gentleman did appear to get excited about it.

David Willetts: The wider point is whether there could be a better compromise than the tiny concession made on the Turner commission. It would mean the Minister accepting that, if he wants to retain an age rule, it need not be 75. It could, for example, be 80. Is there no flexibility whatsoever? The inflexibility is what causes frustration among Opposition Members.

Malcolm Wicks: Let me come back to that point, but I want to deal with another issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. He said as a matter of philosophy—I rather agree with him—that where the state has no direct interest, it should not interfere, but we are not talking about savings that have been built up with no impact from the state. I am sure that we would all agree that we are dealing with a tax-privileged situation for those who are building up pension funds. The purpose is that people have a guaranteed income in old age. That is the state's interest in putting tax resources into pensions generally. In that sense, we are not talking about free decisions in a free society.

Frank Field: Provided people do not go back on to welfare, that part of the bargain has been fulfilled.

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, but it was not a bargain to use the money in any old way: it was a bargain to produce an annuity for old age. That is the matter for debate.
	I want to sum up now because we have covered all the issues; my opening statement anticipated most of them. I repeat that once the Pensions Commission has reported on a range of issues, the Government will want to engage with it again, including annuitisation at the age of 75, about which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) asked. I have already said that we will look further into that with particular care and particular urgency. We will then decide whether the proposals remain fit for purpose. That is as far as we can go on this matter today. This financial matter is one of privilege for the House of Commons and it would be altogether wrong, off the back of a Pensions Bill, to deal with other matters that are not directly concerned with annuitisation with a view to launching a major reform. In our judgment, that would not be appropriate.

Edward Garnier: This whole issue has been discussed for some years. It is not new, but the Government always come back to the House, claiming that they are considering the matter and will do this, that and the other. It is rather like pulling teeth. Is there no energy in the Government, whether in the Department for Work and Pensions or the Treasury, to encourage Ministers, special advisers and civil servants to get to grips with the impoverishment of elderly people through the forced annuity? Why do the Government not do something about it? They should do it before the election; if they did, they might even just win it.

Malcolm Wicks: There is just a chance that we might win it anyway, but we will have to wait to see. I cannot add any more. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his points forcefully and I have made mine.

Steve Webb: I know that the Minister would like to clarify a point that he made about the figure of 250,000 people. He implied that he was being misrepresented and that that was not the right number of people who would be clear of means-tested benefits. In that context, will he tell us what is the question to which 250,000 is the answer?

Chris Pond: The question might be, is 250,000 another way of saying a quarter of a million?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes. The point is that we are talking about a quarter of a million people who are way above means-tested levels. I recognise that there is a gap in evidence about the accumulation of different pension funds but, as I said, 80 per cent. of people have very tiny pension pots. It would require some very clever arithmetic to show that large numbers of people could be placed in the relatively rich category that we have been discussing.
	I accept that we need to consider this matter, and we will do so in due course. With that, I hope that the House will decline to accept the view of the House of Lords on this matter.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendments Nos. 360 to 415.
	The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 148.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments agreed to.

John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your attention that we have been dealing this afternoon with 97 pages of Lords amendments, which occupied their Lordships for more than 90 hours of debate. This House has been given four hours to debate what the Lords took 90 hours to debate. This subject is of vital importance to citizens all over this country, but debate will be curtailed simply so that the Government can get in their wretched Hunting Bill, which more than 56 per cent. of the population do not want anyway. Is not that an abuse of this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament and he knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. We are also now taking away from what time we have for the next debate.

Clause 274
	 — 
	Financial assistance scheme for members of certain pension schemes

Lords amendment: No. 416.

Chris Pond: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu, thereof

Chris Pond: I am sure that if the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) had had the opportunity to hear my arguments on the last group of amendments, he would not have felt it necessary to vote against them and use up still more time.
	In the other place, clause 287 was amended on the subject of the funding of the financial assistance scheme. Lords amendment No. 416 requires that the FAS is paid for entirely from public funds and not in part or in full by way of a charge, levy or contribution from the private sector. I accept the spirit of the amendment, to the extent that imposing any sort of compulsory charge, levy or contribution on the private sector does not figure in our plans for the FAS. Indeed, my noble Friend offered repeated assurances in the other place that we will not impose such charges. That is just as well, because we do not have powers to do so under clause 287.
	The amendment made in the other place has, however, a second and much more unwelcome effect. By prescribing that the FAS should be a scheme for making payments entirely from public funds, the amendment disables the FAS from receiving voluntary donations from the private sector. Because the FAS will increase confidence in pensions and will benefit the industry as a whole, we feel that it is right to keep open the option of obtaining voluntary financial contributions from the private sector. We are most grateful for the valuable assistance in kind offered by the pensions industry to date, both in sharing its expertise through the FAS industry working group and in supporting the data collection exercises that enhance our understanding of the problems that the FAS must address. We maintain a firm hope that the industry will further support the Government's leadership in assisting the individuals and we believe that it has a strong interest in doing so.

Nigel Waterson: So far, has any company, industrial organisation or other body or individual indicated in any shape or form that they are remotely intent on making any voluntary contributions to the fund?

Chris Pond: The hon. Gentleman knew the answer to that question before he decided to put it on the record. My point is that we should leave open the possibility that we might receive contributions from the private sector, because it will have a strong interest in providing them. As it stands, the Bill would shut the door in the face of anyone outside the Government who is willing to support our commitment to help the victims of pension wind-ups. That will ultimately reduce the potential level of financial assistance made available to those individuals, which none of us wants—although, sadly, we have seen attempts to vote out many aspects of the Bill, which could put that at risk.
	I urge Members to disagree with the Lords in their amendment and to support our substitute amendment, which makes it explicit that regulations under clause 287 may not impose a levy or charge on anybody for the funding of the FAS. It does not, however, rule out voluntary contributions to the fund. I hope that Members will support that approach.

Nigel Waterson: Although I am not sure that the word "concession" passed the Minister's lips, this is in fact another concession from the Government, for which we are grateful. I do not anticipate a Division, because we accept the Minister's comments on the drafting and technical points, and that his version may be an improvement on that proposed by the Lords.
	The background to the concession is important, however. We all know that a situation had developed in which it became clear that more than 60,000 people had lost all, or a large proportion, of their pension rights and there was a mounting cross-party campaign on the issue. The Government were faced with a dilemma. They had set their face against doing anything more, but it looked increasingly as though they would be defeated in the House by a combination of the Opposition parties and Government Back-Bench rebels. So they probably panicked, but then, at the last minute, they cobbled together the so-called financial assistance scheme and produced the magic figure of £400 million.
	Many people have tried to find some justification for that figure and the basis on which it was arrived at. We have yet to find the envelope on the back of which it was sketched out, but it is perfectly clear that it was the amount that the Treasury was prepared to make available. As the then Secretary of State said:
	"The Government will therefore make available £400 million of public money . . . with the possibility of further contributions from industry."—[Official Report, 14 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 32WS.]
	A few days later, the Minister for Pensions said:
	"It is open to industry to offer further support. We hope that that support will be forthcoming."—[Official Report, 19 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 983.]
	The Minister who has just opened this debate was not entirely clear in his answer to my intervention, but I think we can take it that from that day to this no one—but no one—in industry has come forward to say that they might even consider making any kind of offer to top up the £400 million, exactly as we predicted at the time. That particular fig leaf has, sadly, been torn away from the Minister—[Interruption.] I do not want to go too far down that road; it is nearly dinnertime.
	Following that announcement in the middle of May, the whole credibility of the FAS has been systematically crumbling, partly due, it must be said, to friendly fire from the Government. There has been a series of leaked announcements about the people and situations that will not be covered by the FAS. We have seen a consistent retreat from the package. I can understand why Ministers might want to do that; it was clear from the start that the sum was woefully inadequate to meet the needs, especially in the cases put forward genuinely and often with passion by Back-Bench Labour Members representing their constituents.
	It has been indicated that solvent wind-ups will not be included in the package, even though it is impossible to make out the moral distinction between workers who have lost everything due to a solvent wind-up and those who have lost due to an insolvent wind-up. There is also the so-called gap year. Ministers or officials let it be known that, because they had changed the priority order, there was to be a period between May 2004 and April 2005—when the PPF is supposed to come into force and open its doors; at the present rate, the queue will stretch round the building—during which people would not be covered by the FAS.
	That position was clearly unsustainable so the Department found another wheeze: to throw some of the liabilities forward into the PPF itself. The crucial thing we have to remember about the amendment is that, basically, it is recognising the inevitable: there is no way that industry will make contributions. Although we must let Ministers retain a certain amount of dignity, no one ever seriously expected them to impose a further levy, on top of all the other imposts they are intending to make on good, well-run companies and pension schemes, but they had that forlorn hope that people would be queuing up to give them the money. It is clear that that will not happen.
	All sorts of things have happened to the Bill, bits have fallen off and new bits have been added, but one of the few wholly consistent themes running run through it from start to finish—like the word Blackpool through a stick of rock—has been that the PPF will not be retrospective. In fairness, the official Opposition and, I think, the Liberal Democrats, too, have always accepted that principle. The analogy, much overworked in various debates, is that one cannot insure one's house against fire after it has already burned down. Members on both sides of the House have accepted that the PPF, funded by the levy—going forward, in a phrase that the Minister has used more than once—cannot consider settling claims that have arisen by the date that it opens its doors; yet the other day, very quietly, under the cover of departmental questions, in which the matter received no mention at all, under the cover of a debate in the Lords on these very issues, in which it received no mention at all, not even as a footnote, the Minister put out a short statement, indicating that—surprise, surprise—some schemes that got into difficulties during the so-called gap year could fall within the PPF's responsibilities.
	Since then, attempts to explain that statement have taken two separate directions. The Minister in the Lords, Baroness Hollis, made the point that there had been considerable media interest in the Minister's statement and said that she wanted to reassure the House. She continued:
	"The Statement made on Monday simply confirmed how existing provisions in the Bill would apply . . . The position has not changed . . . the PPF has not, and cannot, become 'retrospective'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 1212.]
	That seems fairly clear. However, on the day that the announcement was made, it became clear that, as is their wont, the Government had spun it to the newspapers. The spin put on it by a Government spokesman was that this was good news—the Minister used that very phrase in an earlier debate this afternoon. Indeed, it was good news, especially in the context of the Turner and Newell pension scheme.
	I know about the Minister's reluctance to talk about that scheme; that is perfectly understandable and we wish it well. We all hope that its difficulties will be resolved in due course. The way things were put, however, meant that people in that position—perhaps I can stop referring to that particular scheme, and instead refer to "those in that position"—[Interruption.] The Turner and Newell scheme is a useful reference point, not least because it involves some 40,000 people and a shortfall of nearly £900 million on paper, so it is not exactly insignificant, but my point is that there must be a series of much smaller schemes that are in the same kind of no man's land, or what was no man's land until the Minister's statement clarifying the position. The indication is that the position has changed for people in that unfortunate situation. So which is right—the version in the Lords, that the statement changes nothing, or the version from the Minister of State to the effect that it does make a change, and it is good news because it is helping people in such a position?
	I hope that when the Minister responds he will take the trouble to explain—I have tabled a parliamentary question on this subject because I think that it is sufficiently important—what estimate the Department made, before it issued that statement, of any extra liabilities that were likely to fall on the PPF as a result of that statement, or clarification if they prefer to describe it as such. That is an important question, to which the House deserves an answer.
	What is at issue actually goes further than that, because it is suggested that we have had a tacit acceptance by Ministers that the £400 million fund is inadequate for the purpose, and hence this attempt, as I have said, to throw forward liabilities on to the PPF, completely contrary to the entire philosophy underpinning the Bill.
	Many Members of the House will be familiar with the work of Dr. Ros Altmann, who has done sterling work over a long period in trying to help the now 65,000 or more people who have lost their pension rights through no fault of their own. She has done some number crunching, which actually does not tell us anything very new because I do not think that anyone, except possibly Ministers, actually believes that £400 million is remotely enough to compensate those people. Indeed, the Secretary of State admitted as much the other day in questions when he made a very clear distinction between assistance and compensation. One thing is very clear: there will be a large gulf between the benefits that people will receive under the PPF and the assistance that they might receive under the FAS. Let no one be in any doubt about that.

Vera Baird: I am waiting with bated breath to hear what sum of money the Conservatives will put into the FAS to rectify the faults that he is now picking on.

Nigel Waterson: I have never known what bated means, but I hope it is not painful. If the hon. and learned Lady will bate her breath just a little bit longer, I will come back to the point that she very reasonably raised.
	I return to the point that I was discussing. Dr. Ros Altmann has done some figures, and on her calculations, the £20 million a year that the Government are proposing to put into the FAS would buy a pension of £6,000 a year for 130 people. Compare that to 65,000 people who we know for sure have lost a large proportion or all of their pension rights. And for many people, £6,000 does not begin to compensate for what they have already lost. Let me repeat: on Dr. Altmann's calculations, 130 people might be assisted.
	I think, in fairness—I am not trying to pre-empt something that the Minister may want to say—one must add to that any remaining assets of those funds that would be carried into the FAS, in the same way as I assume they would be carried through into the PPF when that is up and running, but by definition those assets are inadequate for the purpose of paying pensions and buying annuities under the current system.
	Is it not strange that before the announcement of 14 May, the mantra we consistently heard, over and over again from Ministers, whether in Opposition day debates or departmental questions, was that they did not want to raise false hopes? I am afraid that the charge now is that on 14 May they did precisely that; they raised false hopes by cruelly making a lot of people think that they were going to be compensated for the pension they had lost.
	I think it is somewhere in Sherlock Holmes that there is talk about the dog that did not bark, but I think this is more a question of the dog that stopped barking, by which I mean those Labour Back Benchers who have been so persistent and vociferous in pursuing the interests of their constituents who have lost their pension rights. They have largely, if not entirely, fallen silent. These are intelligent Members of Parliament, who, I hope, display a cynical disbelief in what most Governments have to say, so it cannot be, I trust, that they believe that the £400 million will be enough.

John Butterfill: While my hon. Friend is talking about cynical disbelief, may I point out to him that the effect of the Government amendment to the Lords amendment is that it does not rule out private contributions as long as they are voluntary, but of course there are various ways of ensuring that one might get voluntary contributions, such as a great deal of arm twisting? Has it occurred to my hon. Friend, for example, that it might be rumoured that the Government were thinking about new tax changes that would affect the industry, but of course if members of the industry were to make voluntary contributions, that might become unnecessary? Should we not therefore reconsider whether we support the Government amendment?

Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are sectors where the Government might have more leverage, such as the defence sector or any sector where the Government are the customer. Computer procurement and IT might be another area.

Michael Fallon: There is another example in this very sector, and that is of course the banks. They were asked whether they would contribute to the costs of the universal bank that the Government were setting up through the Post Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. When the Minister uses the phrase "obtain a voluntary donation", that is exactly what happened; the banks were strong-armed into making that donation. I would not be at all as sanguine as my hon. Friend is about the effect of Government amendment (a). I hope that he will start opposing it soon.

Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend makes another very good point. All I can say is that, so far, the arm twisting has clearly failed to produce any results.
	I was just touching on the fact that all the noise and fury we heard from Labour Back Benchers stopped, in effect, on 14 May and we have heard very little from any of them since. It cannot be because they believe that the £400 million is adequate, but could it be that, with an election looming, they realise that it is not in their interests to rock the boat? Is that the real purpose of the £400 million and the announcement of the FAS on 14 May?
	I return to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She knows what I am going to say, but let me say it anyway. We do not believe in using yet more taxpayers' money to make the FAS workable. We have long borrowed the proposal, originally made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), to use unclaimed assets. Despite the Secretary of State's round abuse of that idea—put forward by his own Chancellor—until relatively recently the mantra of the Treasury was that just because assets are unclaimed does not mean that they do not belong to somebody. Then suddenly, in the small print of the last Budget, we saw that unclaimed assets were suddenly available but for a different purpose. My understanding, having met the British Bankers Association among others, is that those proposals are continuing and are going forward, and we expect, because I was told so in a reply to a question the other day, that we shall have an update on that policy in the pre-Budget report.
	A respected body—the Unclaimed Assets Register—stands by its estimate that there are £15 billion of unclaimed assets in this country, and it is estimated that some £3 billion of pensions remain unpaid every year. The Government trouser vast sums in unclaimed gilts and national savings; they simply put that money in their own pocket because no one has claimed it. So a variety of different pots of unclaimed assets are available. In Ireland, such assets are disposed of for charitable purposes.
	There must be proper safeguards—I shall not discuss them in detail today, although I hope that we will hear more about them when the Chancellor reports on his own pet project for unclaimed assets—but when the next Conservative Government take office, possibly in May next year, I hope that we will find a new, finely honed, glossy fund, produced under this Government, for claiming unclaimed assets and putting them to good use, and one of the good uses to which we intend to put them is providing compensation over and above the existing £400 million to the people who have lost their pension rights.

Bill Tynan: In the unlikely event that you are in government come next May, what payment would you take from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary terms. I think it most unlikely that I will be in government next May, whatever happens.

Nigel Waterson: We would have to look at that at the time. Let me finish the paragraph if not the sentence. We still have not got from the Government the details of how their scheme will work. What is the level of benefit? How will it be paid? Who will be excluded and who will be included? The one thing that will certainly not happen this side of next April, at the earliest, is that anyone will see any money. Again, that seems extraordinarily convenient.

Vera Baird: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Tories would not put a penny of the Government's money—the taxpayer's money—or anyone's money, apart from the unclaimed assets about which there is strong argument, into trying to save all the 65,000 people who have lost their pensions? Is he making it clear that the Tories would not give them a penny piece?

Nigel Waterson: Let us be clear on two issues. First, the £400 million is already part of the public expenditure figures. We would take that over, and I am talking about topping it up to a realistic figure by the use of unclaimed assets. Secondly, the only argument about unclaimed assets is going on within the Government between the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has expressed tremendous independence and freedom of thought since he took over, but I am sure that people in the Department will eventually beat that out of him. They are the ones who are arguing, not us—we have said all along that those assets are available. The only argument is between the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions.
	We accept—I do not want to seem entirely churlish—that the Government have made a concession. They have had to recognise the wisdom of the Opposition's arguments. We also accept, as I said at the start, what the Minister says about the drafting and technical issues on these amendments.

Steve Webb: The purpose of Lords amendment No. 416 was to ensure that private funds were not required to top up the inadequate sums in the financial assistance scheme, and I am perfectly happy to accept the principle that Government amendment (a) will do so rather more effectively than the Lords amendment. In the unlikely event that such a contribution was freely given—I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill)—it would be slightly absurd if statute prevented that money from being accepted into the financial assistance scheme, so the change is sensible.
	The very fact that the Government said that private contributions might be part of the package proves that £400 million was not enough. If £400 million were enough, extra money would not be needed from the private sector to make it up to a decent level. Indeed, that money would be turned away as excessive and unnecessary—so the £400 million is inadequate.
	There has been an important development this afternoon with regard to the prospects of the people who will come under the financial assistance scheme getting justice. The parliamentary ombudsman announced this afternoon that she will investigate the alleged maladministration of several Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, leading to the loss of those workers getting a fair deal. I wrote to the ombudsman last May to ask whether, in principle, she would investigate. I met her, together with Dr. Ros Altmann, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and members of a pensioners action group in July. I and other Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have made submissions to the ombudsman. I am delighted that she has confirmed that she will investigate, because that seems increasingly likely to be the only way that the workers covered by the financial assistance scheme will get justice.
	The Minister for Pensions, speaking at the weekend, appeared to be rather surprised that the private sector had not come up with some cash to top up that inadequate fund. We need to understand just how inadequate that £400 million is. It inevitably sounds like a lot when added up over 20 years. If my overdraft was added up over 20 years, it would look even more terrifying. We are talking about £20 million each year. In the context of a departmental budget of £100 billion a year, the Government are putting in 0.02 per cent. of the Department's budget. That is clearly not enough. When the scheme was proposed, the figure of £400 million was presumably based on the assumption that schemes that went to the wall in the infamous gap year would not be covered. Assuming that the scheme was not adequate on that basis, it is clearly even more inadequate now.
	The key point with regard to Government amendment (a) is that, even if the sums were to come from the private sector, they are likely to be extraordinarily limited in scope. Even if the private sector were to become extraordinarily generous, it will not begin to touch the millions of pounds of underfunding. The best estimates are that £20 million a year over 20 years should have been perhaps £75 million a year over 40 years. The idea that the private sector might come up with £50 million every year for 40 years to bail out an underfunded scheme seems wholly implausible.
	Although we shall reach the end of our consideration of these amendments to the Bill in a few moments, we shall still end up in a wholly unsatisfactory situation, with a huge hole in the financial assistance scheme. Government amendment (a) will allow the possibility of the private sector bailing the Government out, but no one seriously expects contributions of anything like the necessary level and the people who will lose out are those workers who trusted Governments of successive parties, who believed that their company pensions were safe and who have been cruelly let down. I am afraid that the financial assistance scheme is wholly inadequate to deal with that problem.

Michael Fallon: I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on one point: £400 million will certainly not be adequate. It was always a fairly suspicious figure—suspiciously divisible by 20. That is the real explanation. The figure will not be enough, but I caution my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on thinking that it can be simply topped up from unclaimed assets. If he has talked to the banks and the British Bankers Association, he will know that the pot of gold of unclaimed assets may not be quite so large as he thinks. Those assets are certainly very difficult to define in statute. I am not at all sure that the Conservative party should be in the business of expropriation, but that is for my hon. Friend to justify in the necessary legislation.
	I was broadly in favour of Government amendment (a) until the Minister was honest enough to explain it. Until he made it absolutely clear that not making provision for any levy or charge left open the opportunity of obtaining voluntary donations, I was on his side, but it is now clear what will happen. Those in the pensions industry will be told that extra taxes and regulations will laid on them, unless they feel obliged to make those voluntary donations. The phrase "obtain voluntary donations" is sufficiently chilling for us to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, to oppose that amendment.

John Butterfill: When the programme of assistance was first announced, the Government said that they would get voluntary funding from the industry and, at that time, I asked what was meant by "the industry". If it means other insurance companies that may handle the pensions of individuals, such funding can be obtained only to the detriment of those who save with the people providing their personal pensions. If it means the companies that are paying for final salary schemes for their employees, such funding could be obtained only to the detriment of those companies and their employees. If the Minister means the trustees of existing pensions funds, they would be in breach of their fiduciary duty if they made contributions.
	The only reason why the Government have changed the wording inserted by the Lords is so that they can engage in the arm-twisting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has just described. It is entirely likely that that will happen. That has happened on many occasions in different instances, and we will be deluding ourselves if we do not believe that it will happen now. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to reconsider his opinion. I, for one, will be voting against amendment (a).

Chris Pond: The House and the thousands of people looking to the financial assistance scheme and the PPF to assist them in what is a real tragedy for many of them will see through the position taken by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). The House will remember that he voted to decline to give a Second Reading to a Bill that establishes the PPF. He now tells us that the financial assistance scheme is, in his words, "woefully inadequate", but he would not he tell us how much he would put into the scheme and he would not allow us to obtain contributions from the private sector. It is clear that the position that he has taken throughout is to talk down the PPF and to talk down the extra protection in the Bill. Now, he is talking down the financial assistance scheme, to which thousands of people are looking to help them out of the tragedy that they face.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 416 be made.— [Mr. Pond.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

John Butterfill: No.

Mr. Speaker: What does the hon. Gentleman wish to do?

John Butterfill: I want to vote against Government amendment (a).

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question again.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 416 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 417 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 417 agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Motion made, and Question put,
	That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 359; David Cairns, Margaret Moran, Mr Nigel Waterson, Mr. Steve Webb and Malcolm Wicks to be members of the Committee; Malcolm Wicks to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately.—[Margaret Moran.]
	The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 148.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 359 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

HUNTING BILL (PROCEDURE) (NO.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [15 September],
	That the Order of 15th September shall be supplemented as follows—
	1. At this day's sitting proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Hunting Bill (Money).
	2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put the following questions forthwith (and no others)—
	(1) any question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided,
	(2) the question on any motion moved by a Minister of the Crown to disagree with Lords Amendments (which may, in particular, be a motion relating to a specified group of amendments),
	(3) the question on any motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for an amendment in lieu, and
	(4) the question on any other motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
	3. Sessional Orders F(7) and H (Programming of Bills: ancillary questions and Reasons Committee) of 28th June 2001 shall apply to proceedings in relation to the Hunting Bill.
	4. Paragraph 6(1) to (7) of the Order of 15th September shall apply to proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments.
	5. No notice shall be required of a further motion to supplement the Order of 15th September.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Hunting Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hunting Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
	(2)
	the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
	The money resolution is a necessary formality. The House has to pass a money resolution before it can debate proposed legislation that could require new public expenditure. The House of Lords has proposed a system that would require the establishment of an institutional framework, which would be a charge on the public purse, so we need to pass a money resolution as a prelude to our debate. I emphasise that passing the resolution is a formality. It does not pre-empt the decisions that the House might make.

Douglas Hogg: Can the Minister tell the House his estimate of the costs of implementing the amendments made in the other place and of implementing his original proposal?

Alun Michael: No, I cannot give an exhaustive reply now, nor do I think it appropriate to do so. The resources necessary to implement the decision of this House would be agreed. It is clear that this is very much a House of Commons matter.

Douglas Hogg: rose—

Alun Michael: What I am making clear is that it is necessary to pass the formality of a money resolution so that we can—

Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Alun Michael: It is necessary that we pass the resolution so that we can proceed to the substance of the Lords amendments, on which I think that the House would want to spend its time this evening. Let me repeat that passing the resolution does not pre-empt the decisions that this House might make. Passing it will not commit the House to agreeing with the Lords amendments or, indeed, to making any amendments to the Bill.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked about finances. At this stage, if this House agrees with the House of Lords, other decisions may well be taken that affect the cost and the impact on the public purse. It would therefore not be appropriate to go into the financial details now. What we need to do is make sure that the House would agree to the provision of resources, which is why I have moved the resolution.

David Heath: The Minister has made it clear that passing the money resolution does not pre-empt the decision of the House. What would affect the resolution, but appears to have been pre-empted by the House's previous decision, is the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on compensation—an issue that is important to many hon. Members on both sides of the hunting argument. Does the Minister intend to allow the House to divide on that amendment later?

Alun Michael: What votes take place is very much a matter for the House's procedures to determine. It depends when the debate is concluded. I understand the motives of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) in tabling his amendment. He has made his position clear both personally and in correspondence and I respect his view, although, as he knows, I do not share it. Compensation is not made necessary by the provisions of the Bill. When we debate the substantive matters before the House, including his amendment, we can discuss the principles that underlie his decision to table it.

Andrew George: Does the Minister accept that, under the procedure of the House, the House's ability to divide on the matter is, in fact, within his gift? Does he agree that if we are to scrutinise the issue properly, he should use his power to allow us to vote on it?

Alun Michael: It depends on how we move forward with these debates. If the debates end well before the time that is allowed for the procedure motion, the procedures of the House go in one direction. If not, motions moved formally by Ministers take precedence, as is the normal procedure of the House. I would not mislead the House by suggesting that we are willing to entertain the possibility of compensation being paid.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister confirm that, if we reach the guillotine, it is in his power to move it formally so that the House can divide on it?

Alun Michael: I shall listen with interest to the debate. However, I am not inclined to do what the hon. Gentleman says.
	The money resolution is needed for the House to proceed to what I am sure Members on both sides of the Chamber wish to do, which is to engage with the substance of the amendments that have been proposed by another place. I have kept my remarks as brief as is possible, with the interventions, to allow the maximum time for the House.

Peter Luff: I know that the House wants to come to the serious business that is before us. However, I am disappointed that the Minister has given no indication of the blank cheque that he is asking the House to write this evening.
	As I understand it, there are three possible outcomes from our debate this evening. The first is the Bill as it left this place not so many weeks ago—that is an effective ban, and many of us believe that it is riddled with inconsistencies and difficulties. The second possibility is that we accept the Lords amendments. I think that we accept also that that is probably unlikely, but a cost will attach to that. Many of us think that that is the right way to proceed, and a sensible and balanced approach. The third outcome is that the amendments of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) are accepted, which effectively returns the Bill to its original state when the Minister introduced it about two years ago. The Minister must be able to give us some indication of the cost of those three outcomes before we move to the major business that is before the House.

Jonathan Sayeed: It is extraordinary that the Minister cannot give any estimate for any of the options that are before the House. It may be that an outright ban would cost the taxpayer a great deal more money than a licensing system.

Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it extraordinary that the Minister will not give us his best estimate but that that is improper? The House is being asked to authorise public expenditure by a Minister who is declining to give us any idea of what the cost is likely to be.

Jonathan Sayeed: I have considerable sympathy for that point. The most important thing is that we have an idea of the costs. If an outright ban is much more expensive than a licensing system, it may be that certain Members would reject the concept of an outright ban in its entirety.

David Burnside: I wonder whether the Minister is not giving guidance to the House on the costs of the various alternatives of the middle way or an outright ban because he is being assured by the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister, who will be voting for the middle way later this evening, that the Government are prepared to pay for the compromise.

Alun Michael: I make it clear that, when we come to the debate, I shall refer to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). The motion that is before us, the money resolution, refers to the offering from the House of Lords, which goes to one extreme in the nature of the regulation that it proposes. It is the House of Lords that makes those proposals, not the Government. It is for this House to debate these matters and I suggest that proceedings to deal with the money resolution would allow the House to use time to the maximum to debate the principles.
	Question put and agreed to.

Hunting Bill

Clause 1
	 — 
	Hunting wild mammals with dogs

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take motions to disagree to Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 54, amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of certain amendments, and amendments (c) and (d) in lieu of amendment No. 46.
	I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 10, 12, 45 and 52. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I rise not to withdraw the amendments, as I have been encouraged to do by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but to urge support for them. Before turning to the amendments, I shall refer to some technical issues. I hope that the House will bear with me if I explain that the amendments were prepared speedily and that there are some technical clarifications that do not alter their meaning. In amendment (b), the reference in subsection 2(4) to paragraph 11 should be to paragraph 9 and the reference to paragraph 10 should be to paragraph 8. The reference in subsection 9(6)(b) should be to paragraph 23(5), and subsection 14(3)(b) should contain a reference to paragraph 12(4).

Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the amendment in order, in your view?

Mr. Speaker: The amendment is in order. I would not have called the hon. Gentleman if it had been otherwise.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that we have clarification on that point.
	As many right hon. and hon. Members will know, 150 years ago in the Crimea, a war began. Two weeks ago saw the anniversary of one of the battles in that war, which included a suicidal charge across open terrain by the light cavalry of the British forces. It was immortalised by Lord Tennyson, who wrote the now famous lines:
	"Cannon to the right of them,
	Cannon to the left of them,
	Cannon in front of them
	Volleyed and thunder'd".
	As we already see, the parallels with today's debate are pretty clear. In case they are not clear, Tennyson continued:
	"Into the jaws of Death,
	Into the mouth of Hell
	Rode the six hundred."
	At moments like these, those lines from "The Charge of the Light Brigade" seem particularly relevant as I risk fire from all sides. Suicidal or not, the option enabled by these amendments needs to be put to the House on one last occasion. Alas, there may be fewer than 600 Members in the Chamber, but they are no less bold or perhaps foolhardy.

Gerald Kaufman: I admire my hon. Friend's literary knowledge. For those who do not have the extent of his knowledge, will he tell us what happened to the 600?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. Perhaps it is not the best analogy to use, but history does not always repeat itself.

Andrew Robathan: Like the troops of the cavalry at Balaclava, the hon. Gentleman is showing great courage. Does he agree that Tennyson goes on to say the "noble six hundred"? Does he think that the likely outcome of today's debate will show that there are 600 noble Members of Parliament?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I would say, in diplomatic fashion, that I consider everyone in the Chamber on both sides of the debate to be both honourable and noble. I hope that what we will see at the outcome of the debate is 600 Members in the Lobby.

Crispin Blunt: The answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is that the 600 carried their objective and the Russian cavalry was never able to face them again.

Tony Banks: rose—

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the way in which the poem ends. I shall, in fairness, give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).

Tony Banks: My hon. Friend will remember that when history repeats itself, it does so in farce. Are the amendments all his own work? If so, I am rather surprised. If not, all I can say is
	"put not your trust in princes".

Huw Irranca-Davies: I suspect that my hon. Friend's intervention was not intended to be helpful, but was meant to cast aspersions on my motives. I remind him that I took this position before I entered Parliament, and I still maintain it. I expect him to treat my opinions with the same honour that I treat his principled position.
	The easiest speeches to make in Parliament, as I have found out, are those in which one knows that the House is with one in passionate unanimity. Failing that, it is at least some comfort to know that one's party is behind one. In the direst times, it is good to know that one's minority vice is shared by at least a few other stalwart friends. Today, I am in a rather lonely position, although I suspect that I am not entirely alone. Even if mine were the only voice in favour of the amendments, it is a mark of our democracy that it should be heard with tolerance by those who oppose my views. In front of me and behind me are Members who in principle support a total ban on hunting. To my left and right are people who oppose any restrictions whatever. I have never belonged to either of those firmly opposed parties, but I respect the passion and principle that underpin their positions. People who oppose the suffering of animals recognise that they are sentient beings. Having campaigned on this and other animal welfare issues, they deserve the admiration of the House. I only ask them to extend the same courtesy and understanding to people who hold a different view. I urge them to recognise that I, like others, believe that a total ban would be less favourable towards animal welfare than they do, and I shall return to that point later.

Chris Bryant: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's courage today. When he was elected in a by-election not very long ago, many of us had campaigned on his behalf, and were rather bewildered suddenly to find that we had supported somebody who backed registered hunting. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must be calm.

Chris Bryant: Turning to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend, does he accept that the logic of his argument is that lamping might well be prohibited under his proposals? Most people, however, accept that it is the fairest and safest way of killing foxes.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I shall deal with it when I address the technical aspects of my amendments. I know that he intended no discourtesy, and I reiterate that I have adopted a consistent view throughout.
	I acknowledge that my position is somewhat unpopular—that may turn out to be the parliamentary understatement of the year—and I realise that my friends in the parliamentary Labour party will marvel at my audacity or my folly, depending on their assessment of my individual worth. I repeat: I held these views before I came to Westminster. I held them when I campaigned as an unsuccessful, then a successful, candidate. I have maintained them at Westminster. I have been consistent throughout and, as passionately as other hon. Members have held to their principles, I have held to mine.

Simon Thomas: As someone who campaigned against the hon. Gentleman in Ogmore, I acknowledge that he held those views before he came to the House. However, his views are not very unpopular in Wales, because they reflect the views of upland farmers in Wales, where there is a need to maintain a proper relationship between farming and the fox population, which is healthy and viable. Is he going to address the fact that his amendments, in my opinion and the opinion of many people throughout Wales, are environmentally beneficial and will improve the upkeep of the Welsh highlands?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I adopted my position because I recognised the impact of upland hunting on wildlife and its habitat. People interpret the Burns report in different ways, but it clearly said that there was a distinct argument in favour of hunting with hounds in upland areas. I support that argument. It might have been helpful if, at an earlier stage, Lord Burns had clarified his position and spoken out more strongly, but he has done so now.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I tell my hon. Friend that if, at any point, any member of the parliamentary Labour party is not free to express their views, irrespective of their content, without others shouting them down, we shall be in considerable trouble?

Huw Irranca-Davies: When I tabled the amendments, I realised that I would not be successful in any popularity contest among Back-Bench Labour Members.

Jim Dowd: That was true before.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd).

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: If the right hon. Lady will allow me, I shall try to make progress. I think that I have been quite generous in accepting interventions.
	On the last occasion that I voted for a licensing regime, my local daily newspaper, The Western Mail, ran a second-page headline: "Newest MP Backs Blood Sports". That is hardly an accurate reflection of my views, but when did a good headline or story stand in the way of accuracy or truth? Perhaps the paper, along with some hon. Members, would like to reflect on my intervention on a debate in March 2002 when I decried the bloody excesses of hunts which were clearly shown by video evidence to be guilty of barbaric practices such as hurling live foxes to hounds to be torn apart. I make no apology for repeating what I have said before: such hunts should, under the licensing regime, be sanctioned and, if necessary, licensed out of existence.

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Huw Irranca-Davies: To say all hunts are like that is to oversimplify and denigrate the hunts that would want to dissociate themselves from such practices.

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not willing to give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—[Interruption.] Order. She may wish to keep trying, but he is not giving way.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree that the pro-hunt lobby has been too slow to recognise the need for change. The Lords hesitated too long when given the opportunity to opt to reform of hunting with a licensing regime. However, the Commons has been equally guilty of wilfully misunderstanding the motives of people involved in hunts. We have ignored the benefits of lifelong animal welfare and countryside stewardship. In simplifying the debate as one between good and evil, friend and foe, we damage logical argument and diminish the debate. It is enhanced, however, if we respect each other's views, even if we are in total disagreement. We should leave this skirmish without animosity to fight other battles on pensioners and poverty, overseas aid and trade justice, crime and community. In my constituency, we have one hunt— the Llangeinor hunt. To categorise it as red-coated toffs riding to hounds would be to ignore the upland hill-farmer, whom I know well and who, in his eighties, still trots behind the hunt, enjoying the ride along the upland areas of the Garw and Ogmore valleys, as he did when he was a teenager and the valleys were full of collieries. To portray that hunt in terms of class war is to disregard—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) should know better. We must have tolerance in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) must be heard and it is wrong to heckle him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	To portray that hunt in class-war terms is to disregard wholly the former miners who hunt with it, or the Labour party members whose families rely on the hunt for work as farriers. To represent the hunt as a vicious predation on foxes is to ignore the effect that that hunt and others have on maintaining the landscape and the healthy fox population, because the very existence of the hunt places a value on the fox and the habitat in which it exists. If we take away the value of the fox and the lifelong welfare and habitat implications, the effects are clear.
	I do not hunt, but I recognise that others do. Those people are not demons and monsters, but they have been made demons and monsters as we have sought to simplify the terms of the debate. I would ask hon. Members in the debate to please recognise that my constituents who hunt hold very different views, have different backgrounds and arrive at very different conclusions about hunting, but they are exactly the same people who teach our children, police our streets and treat us when we are sick. They are not all saints—and not all hon. Members, despite their honourable status, are absolutely saintly—but neither are those people criminals. They soon will be, however, if a total ban is put in place.
	The amendments in my name are straightforward in their aims and effect. The Lords amendments will be erased and in their place, if carried, will appear the clauses put forward in the Government Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs in December 2002.
	The combined effect of the amendments would include the following: first, hunting would be banned, unless exempted under schedule 1 or registered for the protection of property or biodiversity—that is, for pest control. Secondly, deer hunting would be banned, and hare hunting would be subject to registration. Thirdly, the use of dogs below ground would be subject to registration. Hare coursing events would be banned. The registration of hunts would take place where no other reasonable available method would cause less suffering. Some animal welfare offences would preclude registration at the first point. Finally, if an application for registration were rejected, a further application would be barred for six months.
	My right hon. Friend will understand if I say that my reinstatement of the original Bill does not imply that it is perfect, but I propose it again as a highly workable compromise that reflects the political reality of the moment. It has always been the basis of the least worst way forward.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will give way, for the last time.

Michael Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I recognise the difficult position in which he finds himself. He is willing to allow hare coursing to be banned, but hare hunting potentially to continue. Both activities use dogs to kill hares. How can he justify a principled position if he allows hare coursing, but not hare hunting, to be banned?

Huw Irranca-Davies: It would be easy to be drawn into the same debates and the same questions as have been heard in the Chamber time and again. I will not be tempted down that road because the arguments are so well rehearsed. I have a different opinion from the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will allow me to continue.
	Why reject out of hand the Lords amendments that have come down to us? Because they are clearly unacceptable to the majority in the House. Not least, the Lords have been provocative by voting last night for regulated hunting of foxes, stags and hares, subject to approval by local tribunals. That approach was always going to be rejected by the House. I echo the disappointment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs, who had urged those in another place to accept a compromise option banning stag hunting and hare coursing but permitting some licensed fox hunting with hounds, provided the hunts passed the test of utility and cruelty.
	The original Government Bill, as tabled again tonight in my name, may still prove to be unacceptable, but it has the benefit that it was originally, and still is, well intentioned. It aims to find a balance between the competing principles on the basis of rational criteria and, more importantly, it reflects the relatively recent position of the Government.
	There is a well-rehearsed joke, older even than the debates on hunting, and it seems particularly apt tonight. A drunk comes out of a pub, turns to his equally drunk mate and says, "How do I get home?" The mate replies, "I wouldn't start from here." That is what it seems like tonight: I would not start from here. We are not drunk, but we are certainly punch-drunk on hunting. All sides have been up against the ropes for far too long and have adopted defensive positions. They see their enemy through bloodied eyes and cannot hear the shouts of compromise—too much fighting, too many blows, too many bruising and bloody bouts between old enemies. That is what my right hon. Friend ran up against when he introduced the Government Bill in December 2002. He stepped into the ring to pull the sides apart, but it was never going to be a fight by the Queensberry rules. I am sure he started seeing stars pretty soon himself.
	I do not wish to damn my right hon. Friend with faint praise, but let me say clearly for the record that under his stewardship the Government made a brave attempt to seek a conciliatory position based on evidence and set against the criteria of cruelty and utility. They tried to bring a structure of logical analysis to the debate and to bring light where previously there was only heat. It may have been doomed to heroic failure—as, despite my hopes, the amendments may also be doomed—but sometimes it is better to know that one has tried. I can sleep better at night if I have tried and failed. I can sleep even better if I have tried and won. I urge colleagues to vote for the amendments.
	Why do I bother to introduce again the Government Bill of 2002 in my name? Because if the will of the House is to move to a total ban, I want the House to consciously and emphatically turn its back again on any compromise, and be clear in so doing that every opportunity has been given for an alternative way forward. Even at this eleventh hour, I want hon. Members to reflect for at least a moment before rejecting licensing out of hand: because Burns has declared his position and does not see a ban as helpful for animal welfare; because of the difficulties of policing a total ban; because of the inordinate focus on the chase and the kill, and the lack of focus on the lifelong welfare of the animal; because of the threat to the welfare of the animal when farmers resort to other, more cost-effective measures than lamping, including shotguns and poisons; and above all because I and several other hon. Members want the opportunity to put on record our continuing support for a licensing regime as a viable alternative to a total ban.
	If the final outcome of this long-running debate is a ban on hunting, all democrats will recognise the undeniable will of the House. It has been demonstrated on previous occasions. But do not deny me the opportunity to register my principled opposition to a total ban, or my principled opposition to the status quo. Too often in the debate the sides have portrayed each other as bitter enemies, but no one in the House should be the enemy of democratic debate and democratic decision-making.
	In conclusion, I thank the House for its tolerance in hearing me out, with words that I know will have been uncomfortable for many. I began my contribution by describing what may be called the loneliness of the long-distance licenser. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar with the syndrome. At the end of my speech, as the demeanour of the House by and large suggests this evening, I do not feel quite as lonely, as we are, by and large, all receptive to well-tempered debate. I await the views of other hon. Members with great interest.

James Gray: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), whose speech was, by any standards, honest, passionate and, above all, brave. I do not welcome the solution he proposes, which I shall discuss in a moment, but he has done his reputation in the House no harm at all, and I congratulate him on his speech.
	The hon. Gentleman made it plain that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality is disappointed that the other place has not returned with a better compromise. Those of us who watched the debates in the other place found one thing astonishing: Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible for the Bill in the Lords, took great steps not to speak in favour of an outright ban, which the Bill would have introduced before it went to the Lords. It was extraordinary to see a Minister at the Dispatch Box failing to speak even once for his own Bill.
	Lord Whitty went to great lengths to tell noble Lords that they should come up with a compromise. Unsurprisingly, noble Lords cross-examined him time and again about the compromise that the Government would like, but answer came there none. No hint was given throughout the entire process in the other place about what kind of compromise the Government would like.
	There have been plenty of noises off. The Prime Minister has made it plain in briefings and elsewhere that he favours a compromise, and the Secretary of State for Health—when he is not talking about smoking—has made it plain that he, too, would welcome a compromise. All the noises off have said that the Government want some kind of compromise, but try as we might, formally and informally, we have not been able to find out what kind of compromise.
	That is why the other place came up with this compromise. It sought to recreate the Bill initially introduced by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality—admittedly, it has made a number of changes, which I shall discuss in a minute. It has received no guidance from the Government and it has sought to do what it believes the Government want, namely to recreate the Bill about which the Minister spoke so passionately at the Dispatch Box a year or two ago. We cannot hold it against the other place that it went no further than that and that it sought to improve the Bill in a number of ways.
	I welcome the fact that the Government—in the form of No. 10, if not in the form of DEFRA—are now beginning to engage in discussions about a compromise, albeit by using the unconventional, if highly competent, mouthpiece of the hon. Member for Ogmore. Incidentally, the Government used the same tactic in the other place, where a brand new noble Lord tried to propose a compromise. Like the Minister tonight, the Minister in the other place sat on the Front Bench, not speaking at all. The Minister has left it to a Back Bencher to come up with a compromise. I am glad that No. 10 has taken a grip of the situation and sought to put together a compromise.
	Before discussing the details of a compromise, perhaps it is worth touching for a second on the principle of licensing versus banning—we must not forget that if the House does not accept licensing this evening, the net result will be an outright ban. Believe it or not, we have just passed the fifth anniversary of the publication of the Burns report. Most outside observers might well be forgiven for thinking that never in the field of legislation has so much time been spent by so many on a matter of importance to very few.
	Most sensible people view hunting as a matter for the individual's conscience. Lord Burns seems to take that view—he failed to find any evidence whatsoever that hunting with hounds is cruel. The Minister took us through the six-month consultation period, which culminated in the Portcullis House hearings, but that also failed to produce any such evidence. Lord Burns concluded that
	"the bulk of the concerns . . . raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunt".
	Lord Burns reiterated that view in an important speech in the other place:
	"If there is a desire on the part of the Government and of this House to reform hunting in a way that is gradual and avoids the divisiveness that would be created by a simple ban, there may still be a way forward, through a combination of licensed hunting and further reform of animal welfare legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2004; Vol. 665, c. 146.]
	The Government's great guru, Lord Burns, wants to see licensing, and I hope that many hon. Members agree with him.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his courageous and eloquent speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Burns inquiry found that hunting remains the most humane form of pest control in safekeeping our habitat for future generations? Will my hon. Friend raise that with the Minister?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and she is of course right. I hope that this evening we can avoid doing what we have done in so many of these debates in the past in exchanging quotes from Lord Burns and seeking to make use of him on either side of the argument. His report produced a great deal of evidence, but I am not sure that it is as conclusive as his speech during the Bill's passage in the other place.
	The amendments give Parliament the opportunity to find the way forward. After all, licensed hunting is precisely the principle that the Minister advanced in the first place. He will remember that he said in his press notice when he announced the first Bill:
	"Taking account of the evidence given at these hearings, and of the response to my two consultation papers, I plan to set out proposals for Parliament which can form good and robust law and can take us forward into the twenty-first century able to reflect evolving views on animal welfare and wildlife management."
	When, at the Dispatch Box, he laid out the principles behind the Bill, he said that because the two Houses could not previously reach an agreement on the issue of hunting with dogs
	"the Prime Minister gave me the job . . . of designing legislation to command the support of Parliament and to make good law".
	He said that he hoped that the Bill would enable Parliament to act on the
	"basis of principle and evidence"
	that
	"provides a golden thread that runs through the whole process and provides authority for the proposals themselves. I believe that my proposals will stand the test of time and are right."—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 755–57.]
	Those proposals are precisely those that the hon. Member for Ogmore set out. That is the golden thread that ran through everything that the Minister proposed two years ago, and those are the very principles that the Government now seem to want us to adhere to.

Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government were not seeking compromise they would long ago have stopped hunting on Ministry of Defence and Forestry Commission land, as they easily could have done without any legislation?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is not quite right, because the Government have taken a very honourable position with regard to hunting on MOD and Forestry Commission land. I must declare an interest, in that I hunt on Salisbury plain. The Government have always said that hunting on MOD and Forestry Commission land will continue under licence until such time as hunting elsewhere is banned. That is a perfectly sensible and correct position for them to have taken, and I am glad that they have done so. Year after year Ministers have signed the licences for those two areas.
	By comparison with the golden thread—the principle that ran through the Minister's Bill—the banning Bill that left this House flew in the face of the evidence and principle on which the Minister constantly relies. As he himself said in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister dated 14 May,
	"A complete ban amendment would destroy the architecture of my Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty."
	During the doomed Bill's Report stage in this place, the Minister said:
	"We must not send a defective Bill to the other place, and we would face extreme difficulty if we sought to apply the Parliament Acts to a defective piece of legislation."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 39.]
	The Secretary of State reconfirmed that view in an article in The Times in which she said:
	"The Bill as it stands"—
	namely, the licensing Bill so ably supported by the hon. Member for Ogmore—
	"is acknowledged by animal welfare organisations to be the strongest ever put forward . . . No bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the bill, nor delay its timing."
	I am happy to confirm to the House that if a banning Bill is passed using the Parliament Acts—a Bill that is described by the Minister and his Secretary of State as wrecking and unworkable—an incoming Conservative Government will introduce a Government Bill in Government time to repeal it.
	I readily accept that the licensing solution proposed in the other place and by the hon. Member for Ogmore will not be easy to accept for those Labour Back Benchers who have made it a lifetime project to achieve an outright ban.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am right in the middle of a rather delicate point, but I will come back to him in a few moments.
	Those who favour an outright ban will find it difficult to accept the licensing proposal of the hon. Member for Ogmore. If it is any compensation to them, I, too, would find it quite extraordinarily difficult to accept that same proposal.

David Winnick: If an incoming Conservative Government were to do what the hon. Gentleman has just said, would it not amount to a challenge to those who want to break the law? If the House agrees that these provisions should become law by end of this week, people who oppose what I hope will be a total ban on hunting will have an opportunity shortly in a general election. If they disagree with what Parliament has so decided, they can vote Conservative, so democracy will be decided in the usual way. What is wrong with that?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman takes quite a long time to make an obviously correct point. I have never for one second suggested that people should break the law. He is quite right. If people believe in hunting, they will vote Conservative. I suspect that quite a lot of people will vote Conservative whether they believe in hunting or not. Things could well be the other way round by 6 May next year.

Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essentially a matter for and of liberty? Those who vote Conservative will be voting for liberty on this matter.

James Gray: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is not about hunting, but about liberty, freedom and tolerance. That is why people will vote for a Conservative Government in this area of policy, as in so many others.
	I entirely accept that the licensing proposal before us this evening will be difficult—it will stick in the craw—for the outright abolitionists on the Government side. It sticks in my craw as well. I have spent the best part of the last three years arguing, on occasions quite passionately, against such proposals. Indeed, I have spent a large part—too large a part—of my parliamentary career attempting to leave hunting alone and allow it to remain unregulated. These proposals are certainly not something that I genuinely welcome. I also have to say that, from my standpoint, there is a risk—many people think it is a very substantial risk—that if the licensing regime were to be passed, it would be the end of normal, ordinary, traditional hunting as I know it. That is very likely to be the case, which makes me not at all keen to endorse the proposals.

Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—I share his views in many respects on this matter—would be improved further if we could get wildlife management brought into the whole equation? Then, we really would be considering the issue as the Government originally intended, which was subsequently changed. The Minister himself promised people that he would look into the wider issues, including wildlife management.

James Gray: The hon. Lady is indeed right. In a few moments, I shall speak to the Lords amendments, some of which include wildlife management in the test for utility. The Minister said on many occasions that he would like to see wildlife management made part of those utility tests, so the hon. Lady is entirely right. I am merely explaining that, if the regime proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore were accepted, it would still be accompanied by a great deal of concern on my part, but we might be prepared to consider it none the less.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman repeated something that was said in the other place—that I had suggested that wildlife management should be viewed as an element of utility, but that is not the case. When I sought evidence and invited people from all quarters to submit it, I did so on the broadest possible range of issues that might help to define utility, but that is quite different from the conclusions that I reached, having heard the different submissions provided by different groups of people.

James Gray: The Minister is, of course, entitled to change his mind. A couple of quotations show that he has done so. One is from a press release announcing the Bill, dated 11 September 2002, where he plainly says:
	"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife . . . Taking account of the evidence given at these hearings . . . I plan to set out proposals . . . to reflect evolving views on animal welfare and wildlife management."
	Again, on 10 April 2003, the Minister said in a letter to the chairman of the Countryside Alliance that the term "utility"
	"addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation."
	Like any lady, the Minister is of course entitled to change his mind. However, when he discussed these matters with the Countryside Alliance and others—in the run-up to the Portcullis House meeting and while the Bill was being prepared—the Minister made it clear that he believed that wildlife management was an important part of the utility of hunting. It was only when the Bill was finally published that, for mysterious reasons that may be not unconnected with political expediency, the wildlife management heading disappeared from the utility definitions.

Alun Michael: I must correct the hon. Gentleman again. That happened as a result of consideration of the evidence. The opportunity was given for evidence to be given, and I based the Bill on the evidence that I saw. The record of all the evidence that was considered is still available.

James Gray: The Minister is trying his best, but that does not explain why, after all the evidence had been presented at the Portcullis House hearings, the Minister said that he believed that wildlife management was one of the matters that had to be considered.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all of us who opposed a ban at that time were fully convinced that the Minister had accepted the case for wildlife management? He now pretends that he changed his view on the basis of the evidence, but the fact is that he gave us documentary confirmation, after he had heard the evidence, that he believed that wildlife management was a key consideration.

James Gray: That is right. The quotations that I gave the House show that, long after the Portcullis House discussions, the Minister said time and again that he believed that wildlife management was a legitimate part of the utility test. He has changed his mind about thatI suspect because he needed to buy off some of the opposition on his Back Benches. None the less, he must admit that at one time he believed in the legitimacy of wildlife management in the utility test, and that now he does not.

David Taylor: While it could turn out that wildlife management will lie at the heart of any rationalisation of hunting on the basis of utility, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the test of cruelty is likely to fail, for the reasons elucidated by Lord Burnsthat is, because there is too little information about the comparative welfare implications of the different ways to kill foxes? Is not that the problem over which any scheme of registration will stumble at the first hurdle?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. On several occasions, scientists have said that we need a great deal more scientific evidence about the welfare implications for different species. The Lords suggested that implementation be delayed for three years, so that research by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons could be commissioned to determine the relative cruelties inflicted by the different ways available for dealing with the different species. That emphasises why we should not proceed with a ban this evening. We should go ahead with a licensing system that would allow the registrar to consider the very difficult and complex scientific matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope very much that he will join us in the Lobby.
	The hunting world is ready to consider some form of compromise involving a registration system, albeit with gritted teeth. We have come to accept that, ill informed though it is, there is public concern to make sure that hunting is the most humane and sensible way to dispatch foxes, mink, hare and deer. If licensing will assuage that public concern, then so be it: hunting has nothing to hide. We are not afraid of regulation, so long as it is fair minded and evidence based.
	That leads me on to a discussion of the type of regulation being proposed this evening. After all, we on this side of the argument are convinced that hunting mammals with dogs produces the most animal-friendly, and the least cruel, solution to the killing of foxes, deer, hare and mink. We argue that shooting, snaring, gassing and poisoning are far more cruel andimportantlyfar less selective. We argue that there is a real utility in many aspects of hunting with hounds, that the rules and conditions that govern it are clear, straightforward and above board, and that they would pass the scrutiny of any dispassionate registrar or arbiter.
	Of course, I am well aware of the contrary arguments advanced by Labour Members. They say that they can prove that hunting mammals with dogs has little or no utility, and that it is more cruel than any other method of dispatch. That is their argument, and they express it passionately enough. If they are convinced of their case, however, and if they are convinced that they can prove it, I challenge them to allow the registrar to weigh up my views, my passion and my beliefs against theirs. They are not prepared to do that; they want this House, which does not have the scientific evidence called for by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), to make up its mind whether stag hunting, for example, is more or less cruel than allowing people to shoot the stag, which would certainly happen if it were to be banned.

Edward Garnier: The supporters of a ban on hunting should be all the more keen to allow the licensing system to come into force because the Government's Bill, as it used to be, provided for the expenditure of public money to allow so-called animal welfare groups to argue their case. It did not, of course, allow for public money to be used by those who were asking for the licence to hunt.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point, although I have to tell him that once we have the registrar up and running one of my greater ambitions in life will be to have the Countryside Alliance registered as one of the animal welfare groups that does indeed benefit from public money. I very much hope that we shall succeed in achieving that.
	There is an old truism in business that the hallmark of a good deal is when both parties leave the negotiating table rather dissatisfied. The proposal before us seems to bear the hallmark of that truism. Labour Members will not be happy with it, as we can see from their behaviour. We would most certainly not be even slightly happy with it, and I have spent three years of my life arguing against it. It just may be, however, that I am none the less ready to accept that the registrar would balance up the arguments that my hon. Friends are putting and that I could rest and rely on the conclusions to which he comes.
	I would accept the Bill with a heavy heart, and I must enter certain caveats implicit in the small changes that the other place made to the Bill originally presented on Second Reading by the Minister for Rural Affairs. The other place made seven groups of amendments to that licensing Bill. Some are reasonably unimportant and may well be acceptable to many people who are looking at the big picture. For example, they exempt the hunting of stoats and weasels, which was inexplicably omitted from the original Bill.
	They also allow the use of terriers underground for the dispatch of orphan cubs and the protection of wild birds and livestock. After all, there is really no reason why that Bill, which left this House and was voted for overwhelmingly by the House, should allow terriers to be used underground for one purpose, and one purpose onlythe protection of birds. Why should the 340,000 lambs killed every year by foxes not have the benefit

Gordon Prentice: indicated dissent.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman expresses amazement, but that figure comes from the National Farmers Union. Some 340,000 lambs a year are killed by foxes, yet farmers may not use terriers underground to protect them while game people may use terriers underground to protect game birds. Why should that be the case? Why cannot farmers use terriers as much as gamekeepers can? There is no reason why those relatively uncontroversial proposals from the other place should not be sensibly considered here.
	Three sets of Lords amendments to the original Bill are worthy of further explanation, however, raising three areas of contention against the proposals of the hon. Member for Ogmore. First, the other place corrected what seems a logical anomaly in the structure of the Minister's Bill. He, of course, allowed the registration of the use of dogsas he likes to call themto hunt foxes, mink and hare. On the basis, however, of what he described as incontrovertible evidence of their absolute cruelty, the Minister banned deer hunting and organised hare coursing events outright. In Committee we challenged him repeatedly to tell us what that incontrovertible evidence of cruelty might be. He failed time and again to do so, so we inquired of Professor Patrick Bateson, the scientist on whose work the Minister seemed to base his claim, whether there was any such thing as incontrovertible evidence of the cruelty of deer hunting. In a reply dated 21 January 2003, Professor Bateson famously said:
	Only someone who was scientifically illiterate could argue that evidence from a new area of research was 'incontrovertible'. I shall write to Alun Michael to distance myself from that view.
	He went on to argue that much more research was needed on the physiological effects on deer of being hunted before it would be possible to conclude whether the practice should be banned. That research is specifically called for in the Lords proposals on implementation that we are discussing this evening. In the absence of any such incontrovertible evidence to support an outright ban on hunting, surely it would be only reasonable to allow the registrar and the tribunal system established by the Bill to consider the scientific arguments of its proponents and opponents. Why should we put ourselves in the position of the registrar? Why should we say that we know that deer hunting is more cruel than fox hunting and must be banned outright? What is the evidence to prove to us that that is the case? Why cannot we ask the registrar and the tribunal to consider the scientific evidence, from Professor Bates and others, and whether deer hunting should be banned? Surely all categories of hunting should be treated in the same way. There is no reason to single out two particular kinds of hunting for an immediate ban.

Adrian Flook: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of deer hunting on Exmoor is second to none.

Adrian Flook: One of the concerns about a ban on stag hunting is that it would decimate the red deer herd on Exmoor. Members who intend to vote to ban stag hunting do not appear to appreciate that.

James Gray: My hon. Friend knows what he is talking about and I have seen him on Exmoor. There is no reason why farmers would allow herds of deer to roam across their farms were it not for their support for the hunt. The Minister has consistently refused to come up with any alternative red deer management programme to replace hunting.
	The second series of amendments from the other place, about which we have spoken briefly already, addresses the issue of managing wildlife. It is important that the management of wildlife should be one of the utility tests in the Bill.
	The third change that the other place made to the original Bill concerns commencement. The House will remember that the original Bill proposed commencement three months after its passage, but that on Second Reading a suggestion was made to the other place thatostensibly for reasons of the welfare of the hounds and horses, although many of us suspect that it was more for political reasons and to try to avoid the general electionimplementation should be delayed to 31 July 2006. The hon. Member for Ogmore suggests a slightly later date. Leaving aside the suspicion that political expediency lies behind the proposed dates, the other place has suggested a much more logical approach. Under its amendment, the Bill would come into force on a date determined by the Secretary of State, which would not be before 1 December 2007. It would also require the Secretary of State to commission research from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons into the relative pain, suffering or distress caused to wild mammals as a result of hunting with dogs. The amendment does not seek an unreasonable delay. It would be a modest delay to the implementation of the Bill and is probably accepted by Labour Members who disagree with me on other issues. The amendment seeks to complement the registration system giving the registrar the vital scientific help that he will need in assessing relative suffering. It would also give enough time for the registrar and tribunal to be set up, and for those seeking registration to prepare their applications.
	I approach today's proceedings, and what the other place has proposed, with no enthusiasm. It is my view that hunting is the most humane and selective way of culling foxes, deer, hare and mink; that the self-regulation under which we have operated for some years works very well; and that governmental interference is entirely unnecessary. But I am ready to accept that, after years of discussion, the nation needs to be reassured that hunting is conducted properly and that its utility greatly exceeds any compromises to the hunted animals' welfare. So we on this side of the argument have concluded that we have nothing to hide, and that we are content to submit our activities to the scrutiny of an independent and dispassionate registrar. We therefore welcome the amendments proposed by the other place and we will vote in their support. If they are not passed, I should make it plain that we have grave reservations about the detail of the proposals from the hon. Member for Ogmore in three important respectsdeer hunting and hare coursing, the date of implementation and, above all, the inclusion of wildlife management. But we welcome the fact that the Government appear, albeit by a roundabout route, at last to be engaging in some degree of negotiation about a fair and reasonable licensing regime. We are keen to allow the other place to consider further the Minister's proposals, so it is with a heavy heart and through gritted teeth that I shall ask my hon. Friends who care about the countryside to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore, making it clear as we do so that we have grave reservations about it.

David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable argument for consensus and agreement. If there is no consensus and no agreement on a middle-way approach and if, after 5 May, the Conservative party does not have an overall majority in the election and needs some other support, would he welcome the fact that at least 11 of the 14 Ulster MPs who sit in the House will give cross-party backing to our English, Welsh and Scottish colleagues in reversing a ban on hunting?

James Gray: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, which is especially important, as he has recently suffered from an ignorant and prejudiced ban on hare hunting in Northern Ireland, for all the wrong reasons and with no scientific evidence whatever. We entirely support him on that.

Stephen O'Brien: I share my hon. Friend's analysis. I speak on behalf of the five hunts that use land in my constituency, and it is clear to me that, although the Minister and his party will vote for many measures to give definition to a permissive society, the compromise that my hon. Friend advocatesalbeit through gritted teethis a test of whether they truly believe in a permissive, civilised, free society.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reaction to the amendments proposed by the other place and by the hon. Member for Ogmore. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not been on his feet before now to promote his original Bill.
	If the House does not accept the amendments that the other place has sent us, or the alternative proposals made by the hon. Member for Ogmore, the net result will be an outright ban on hunting. The truth of the matter is that the countryside will be a poorer place if that happens and the people of the countryside will neither forget it nor forgive it.

Alun Michael: We have started well. I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on demonstrating something that is always respected in the Housea consistent personal view on a controversial issue.
	The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) expressed his views in a forthright manner. I disagree with a great deal of what he said, but we can certainly agree on the dangers of selective quotation from the Burns report. That report, like the hearings in Portcullis House, is illuminating if one approaches it looking for enlightenment rather than simply searching for quotations that support one's original point of view.
	I respect especially the important point that the hon. Gentleman made when he said that he would not breach the law in the event of the House legislating for a ban. He made clear his point of view that, should a ban be introduced, he would try to change the law, but that he would respect the law. I respect that point of view. In discussing these issues, some people on both sides of the argument, and sometimes Members of the House, have allowed their passion to take them beyond the bounds of reason. We have heard some of the language used in Parliament square. I respect the strength of view that people expressed in that demonstration, but I do not support the disrespect to the parliamentary process that was expressed there and in a variety of other places.
	I know of the hon. Gentleman's personal strength of view, so I congratulate him on not going down that road when he speaks in this place and elsewhere. It is an approach similar to that taken by many of us in our opposition to a really unjust lawthe poll tax. Although we opposed the law and sought changewe were eventually successfulwe argued that people should neither break the law in their demonstrations at the time nor fail to pay the poll tax.

Tony Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, but we should also know what we are doing, should we not, and is it not the case that if we do go for a total ban there will be three certain effects? One is that there will be lots of work for lawyers. The second is that there will be lots of work for policewomen. The third is that the forces of political extremism will be nourished. We should at least know that in doing what we do?

Alun Michael: The response to my hon. Friend is no, no and no. The way in which language has been used in some quarters in this debate to appear to justify or condone acting outside the bounds of legitimate protest is unacceptable. That has been wrong. But the options that are before the House, as I will spell out in a moment, are reasonable and clear, and the House of Commons will have to take a view on them.

David Cameron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Michael: In a moment.
	I referred to what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said in his introduction, and I would say to him that it is a pity that the willingness he has expressed tonight to seek compromise has not been seen over the last three years. Whereas he suggested that the Government were coming belatedly to look for a way through this issue, I have to say that anybody who has watched the work that I have undertaken and the debates that we had exhaustively in Committee, has to say that it is on the Government Benches that there has been an attempt to find a way through the issues.
	I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the spontaneous action of the Lords Back Bencher last week to put forward the Bill as it came out of Committee in the House, was unceremoniously dismissed by some 189 votes to 39 in the House of Lords last week. If his view is shared on the Conservative Benches in the House of Lords, it is a pity that it was not reflected in that vote.

Lembit �pik: On the matter of compromise, while I agree that the Minister has worked hard to try to find some alternative involving regulation, does he not accept that the middle way group and others have sought to do so as well? While perhaps not always having the resources to shout as loudly as the others, we have for a long time been trying to lead the thinking in the Chamber towards some sort of regulation. Does he agree with me, therefore, that when one starts looking at the evidence, as the Minister has done, one comes to the incontrovertible conclusion that only regulation has a chance of increasing animal welfare?

Alun Michael: I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point and disagree with him on the other. First, yes, I pay tribute to him and others who have sought to find another way through, and it has been a cross-party effort; however, no, I do not agree with the conclusion that he reaches. I made it clear that I did not agree with the middle way Bill option as he drafted it, but that does not stop me respecting the efforts that he put in to try to find a way through this divisive issue.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister knows that I deplore breaking the law as much as he does, but does he now accept the validity of the case made so eloquently and bravely by his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) this evening?

Alun Michael: Coming to my Bill, I still believe that that Bill was well drafted and would have provided the basis for good legislation, and I shall make that clear in a moment. However, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there are three choices before the House. First, there are the amendments proposed by the House of Lords, which I would describe as a limp system of regulation; secondly, there is the Bill as introduced in the House and sent to the Lords earlier in this Session; and thirdly, there are the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, which essentially would turn the Bill back into the Bill as I introduced it to the House in the previous Session.
	May I deal with the questions of finance, as I promised that I would? As I said, the money resolution dealt with the propositions that have been sent to us by the House of Lords, and I have not exhaustively studied the matter to see what the cost of those would be. The current estimate of the costs of the registration system within the Bill as I originally introduced it was 10 million for the first year. Three quarters of that cost would be in respect of tribunals.
	The money resolution, of course, would not be necessary if the Bill as sent to the House of Lords were approved, since policing costs have been authorised already. Indeed, the Association of Chief Police Officers expressed the view that the cost of policing a ban would be much the same as that of policing hunt protesters at present.On finances, perhaps I should also refer to the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). Of course, I shall listen to the contribution that I am sure he will make shortly, but such an amendment would provide an open-ended compensation clausea blank chequeand even a so-called banning Bill would not deprive anyone of their property. It would only place a restriction on the use to which the property is put, and there is no human rights requirement to pay compensation in such cases. Of course, when the House last debated the issue, we heard the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made a narrow point about contracts, which a ban must frustrate, but it did not call into question the human rights issues in general.

Andrew George: I fully accept that the amendment that I tabled could have been drafted a little tighter in places, but the Minister has not dealt with the principle. If a ban could be introduced within three months, which is a prospect under the present proposals, surely the Minister must accept that there is a strong case for compensation. What about the principle?

Alun Michael: No, I do not accept that, which should not come as a surprise to anyone, given the long period during which the issue has been debated in the House. As I made clear when we discussed the issue at length on a previous occasion, my advice is that there are no human rights implications nor any implication for a requirement to compensate either in the Bill that I originally introduced, or in the Bill as amended when it left the House. In any event, I proposed a motion, which was supported in the House, to delay implementing the legislation because it is quite clear that some people will not accept that the current situation is likely to change until there is something to that effect on the statute book. That delay would allow those who have put their heads in the sand time to adjust, but that is a bonus, rather than a necessity in respect of human rights legislation.

David Drew: We have the precedent of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, under which compensation was paid. However, when and if the draft animal welfare Bill is introduced, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it could include a mechanism by which some form of compensation could take place?

Alun Michael: I have to correct my hon. Friend: there is no precedent relevant to the Bill. In the case that he mentions, there was deprivation of property, and a timing was proposed that aimed to mitigate the affect of that deprivation of property.
	Let me make a couple of points about the Lords amendments. Some Lords have said that the amendments that they approved would establish a registration and tribunal system that would be an improved version of the system proposed in the Bill that I introduced in December 2002. That is a gross misrepresentation. My Bill was not a compromisethere can be no compromise on crueltyand it would have put an immediate end to all the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. Cruelty is well defined in law as the cause of unnecessary suffering.
	My Bill would have only allowed hunting in cases where it was proved beyond doubt that the use of dogs was essential for necessary pest control and would cause less suffering than other methods of pest control. That is a principled approach that addresses the reasons why so many people find hunting with dogs for sport so abhorrent.
	Let me make another couple of points about the differences. My Bill sought to ban deer hunting because it is absolutely clear on the evidence that that form of hunting would never pass both the utility and the least-suffering tests, since it will always cause more suffering than the alternative of stalking and shooting. That stands to reason. It will always cause the deer more suffering to chase it for hours until it is exhausted and can run no more before shooting it than approaching it quietly and shooting it unawares.

James Gray: That is not what Professor Bateson said. If the Minister is so certain that there is no chance that deer hunting will pass the test as defined in the Bill, why not leave it to the registrar to turn it down?

Alun Michael: Very simply, because that would be a waste of the tribunal's and registrar's time. I made that point very clearly when I introduced the Bill. There is a difference between deer hunting and the evidence that Lord Burns acknowledged in respect of some aspects of fox huntinghe referred only to some aspectswhich is what the tribunal system is meant to deal with on the basis of an objective consideration of the evidence.
	The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that we have done nothing to promote deer management. Indeed, we have done a great deal. Part of the problem in relation to Exmoor is that some fearI speak of those who support huntingthat the proper management of deer would be the thin end of the wedge for the regulation or banning of deer hunting. It is a pity that there has not been more engagement in deer management by those involved in hunting if they have such concern for the deer. We will continue our efforts to seek to engage all parties in effective management of the deer population.
	In respect of the amendments suggested by the other place, I have to point out that my Bill was drafted to ban hare coursing. Hare coursing events have no pest control justification; their primary aim is to allow people to gamble on the relative performance of dogs when they are set after hares in a confined space. I took the view that setting a dog on a wild mammal just for fun is not just totally unacceptable, but certainly has no utility. It certainly does nothing to assist in pest control.
	The Bill and the amendments that the Lords have sent us do not offer us the Bill as I originally introduced it to the House or as it emerged from Committee. It is a far more extreme measure and, as I indicated earlier, limp in terms of pretending to provide a form of regulation. It would be pretty weak and ineffective.
	The Lords also widened the utility test to allow hunting for the purpose of wildlife management. Except in the narrow sense of pest control, the evidence did not justify such an approach. It did not suggest widespread benefit for wildlife management. However necessary it is in the modern world to manage wildlife, we do not do it by chasing wild mammals with dogs.
	For all those reasons, I believe that the House should disagree with all the Lords amendments on registration. They would also prevent the new system from coming into force for at least three years from now and would give an effective veto to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In contrast, my registration system would have been up and running within three months and the alternative of the Bill that went from this House with a motion for a later commencement date would have given July 2006 for the date of commencement.

Simon Thomas: I take the Minister back a few sentences to what he said about wildlife management. Is he aware that the Countryside Council for Wales actively promotes hunting on Cors Fochno near Borthit is one of the lowland bogs in Wales and a site of special scientific interestprecisely because hunting with hounds and flushing out foxes with hounds to be shot afterwards is the best way to protect the ground nesting birds on that essential site? He should surely consider the wider wildlife protection issue. If the Countryside Council for Wales can support it, surely he can.

Alun Michael: The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes may be correct in relation to flushing, but he generalises too far about the activities to which he refers.
	I remind the House of how we reached this position. Strong and passionate views have been expressed on both sides of the hunting debate on many occasions. The House has voted nine times in 10 years and, on each occasion, it has voted to introduce a ban on hunting. On two occasions, those votes came about because a Back Bencher had introduced a Bill and, on seven occasions, there was a vote because the Government, who were seeking a less contentious way forward, had brought forward other options or proposals. I have to point out that the House has voted for a ban by a large majority on every occasion, so its views have been made clear.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister talks about the past 10 years, but I seem to remember that in the vote in 1996, there was a majority of 11 in favour of keeping hunting.

Alun Michael: No, I do not think so. I have been through the records and found nine occasions on which there were votes, and on each occasion there was a large majority in favour of a ban on hunting.

David Winnick: In view of what my right hon. Friend said a moment ago, is it not a fact that the House of Lords has not shown the slightest desire to accommodate the House of Commons? It is responsible for the confrontation that is occurring between the two Houses, and the fault for it lies entirely with the majority of the Lords who have not the slightest wish for any kind of ban whatsoever?

Alun Michael: I cannot disagree with what my hon. Friend says.

Kate Hoey: Does the Minister agree that a majority of Labour peers in the House of Lords voted for a licensing regime?

Alun Michael: The decisions of Parliament are not taken by some sort of opinion poll in which the votes on either side in the House of Lords and the House of Commons are averaged out. I am trying to address this Housethe elected Houseon the issue.
	I am often asked whether the House of Commons regards hunting as the most important issue before itcertainly not, as far as the Government are concerned. Hon. Members on both sides of the argument say that it is not the most important issue facing them, but we must look at their behaviour. Time after time when we debate hunting, both sides of the Chamber are full, but when we consider issues that are far more important to people in rural areas, such as jobs, the economy, housing, health or education, the Chamber empties. Hunting might not be at the top of anyone's agenda, just as it is not at the top of the Government's agenda, but it must be dealt with because of the consistent strength of view that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the argument year after year.
	Have the Government tried to find a less divisive way forward? They certainly have. The Government commissioned the Burns inquiry and introduced a Bill that offered three choices for consideration by the House and the other place. The Government, through me as the Minister, invited all sides to give evidence to try to find a way forward. I undertook proximity talks with the three main groupsthey were necessary before we could get them into the same roomto discuss the possibility of them examining the evidence together.
	We held hearings in Portcullis House during which the focus was on cruelty. All three groups, including the Countryside Alliance, agreed the issues that we debated and on which we heard expert evidence. It was at that point that the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, John Jackson, said:
	If something is cruel, we shouldn't be doing it.
	This has nothing to do with liberty, freedom or respect for people's way of life, but, as the Countryside Alliance acknowledged at the time, it is about the question of cruelty. Of course I respect those who argue that hunting is not cruel. That is why we gave them the opportunity to agree on both the people who gave evidence to the inquiry and the questions that should be put to them. That is why we spent a day considering evidence on the principle of utilitycruelty is the causing of unnecessary suffering, so necessity must be considered. We also spent a day considering the principle of least suffering and a further day debating how best to apply those principles on the basis of a list of topics that was agreed by all three main groups. We listened to expert witnesses, the list of which was agreed by all three groups.
	I was proud of securing that debate and of the quality of the discussion. I paid tribute at the time to the way in which all three groups engaged in the process. However, it was rather sad that after people left the meetings, they claimed that everything that they had heard justified the view with which they went into the room in the first place. That illustrates not just a perversity on the part of the people who expressed those views, but the extent to which views on all sides of the debate are deeply entrenched, passionately held and very difficult to move in any way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: A large number of my constituents participate in hunting. All of them, especially those who will lose their jobs if a banning Bill is passed, ask for fairness and for the Minister to be a man of principle. The Minister went through those Portcullis House hearings, commissioned the Burns inquiry and concluded that a licensing Bill would be the best way forward. In his press release of 11 September 2002, he said:
	The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel.
	Bearing all that in mind, will he demonstrate that he is a man of principle and vote for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for the original Bill?

Alun Michael: Yes, I will vote for the amendments because they introduce legislation that I thought would be extremely effective and right for the long term.

Barry Sheerman: That is good news. My right hon. Friend knows that a group of us on both sides of the House has consistently thought, with the bone-headed relationship between this House and the House of Lords, that there was a middle way. The opportunity to find a middle way has consistently been brought before the House. I deeply resent his suggestion that the fault lies only in the upper House. From the middle way position, it seems to me that both sides are equally to blame for the position that we are in.

Alun Michael: I find my hon. Friend's logic peculiar. First, I said that there were serious flaws with the middle way group's propositions, much as I respected what the people who proposed that option were attempting to do. Secondly, if he wants to judge who is and who is not being bone-headed, I should explain that the middle way option was put to the House of Lords before the last general election and was overwhelmingly voted down. Had that decision not been taken, perhaps debate would have gone on and we would not be in this position. I suggest that that was day one of being bone-headed.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Minister for once again repeating something that was implied in the Lords, which was that it would have been much better had the Lords opted for the middle way before the last election. Does he accept, however, that the middle way group has never looked for a compromise? I am worried that the word compromise has featured extensively in the debate. We are looking for a radical and different way genuinely to improve animal welfare and protect human freedom. We may have failed in his judgment, but for the first time those of us who sought the middle way are having to find a compromise between an outright ban, which would be extremely bad for animal welfare, and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), which are not as good for animal welfare as a full middle way solution would have been. For the first time we are compromising, and I think we will vote with the hon. Gentleman.

Alun Michael: I accept the description of the proposals that that the hon. Gentleman supported and his reasons for doing so. As he knows, I respect the great amount of effort and time that he put in to promote the middle way option. As I saidI have made this clear to him beforehis proposals were flawed, but I respect entirely the efforts that were made to find a different solution.

Chris Bryant: I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister has tried to take the Bill through all its different stages, and I am glad that he is supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), although I shall not support them. My problem is that the most common way of killing foxes in the Rhondda is by shooting them at night

Simon Thomas: By running them over.

Chris Bryant: Not by running them over.
	The most common way of killing foxes in my constituency is by lamping them, but I remember sitting through the three days of hearings in Portcullis House and being told by a large number of people who supported hunting that it would be far crueller to kill foxes by shooting or lamping. If that is the case, surely the registration system, as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, would fall foul of the cruelty case.

Alun Michael: No, I do not believe that lamping is a crueller optionindeed, that is one of the points on which there is widespread agreement. Everyone asked me to accept the Burns report, and one of that report's clear findings was that lamping is generally preferable and less damaging in terms of animal welfare. Lamping would not be ruled out by the Bill as I introduced it, or as amended as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore proposes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.
	One of the problems is that the conclusions that we reached during our discussions at Portcullis House, which must surely have led anyone to say that not all hunting was entirely clear-cut, were set aside by those who have campaigned for hunting. They have retreated not into compromise, but into an attitude of no surrender, exemplified by the phrase an attack on one is an attack on all, rather than sought to achieve a just solution based on principle and evidence. In contrast to the comments made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), comments such as
	the countryside will erupt in fury
	are not only inaccuratethere are divisions of view within the countrysidebut appear to justify, if not condone, an unreasonable approach to protest. I warned the chairman of the Countryside Alliance on a number of occasions that I feared that some of his members might be encouraged to think it okay to become involved in illegal activities if such language continued to be used. That is not the right way to approach public debate or decision making.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to dwell on the countryside erupting and things like that. The Minister admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that he would support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), which reflects the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman introduced in November 2002. Will he explain to me why it is the hon. Member for Ogmore who introduced the proposal, not the Government?

Alun Michael: Because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, whose efforts I respect, sought to table the amendment. Having seen the way in which last week the House of Lords, by such a large majority, rejected the Bill as it came out of Committee, I had given up hope that, at this late stage, a majority might be found in favour of the Bill that I originally introduced, or the Bill as it came out of Committee. It would have been rather more constructive if there had been some support for my efforts to bring constructive options before the House, or if there had been more support for our proposals in the Commons in the last Session, or if the House of Lords in the last Session had sent back an amended Bill so that there could have been debate between the two Houses, or if last week the House of Lords had responded positively to the amendments before it.

Edward Garnier: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not understand my question. Why did the Government not table the amendment? After all, it precisely reflects the Government's own Bill of November 2002.

Alun Michael: My preferred option would have been the Bill as it came out of Committee and as it was put to the House of Lords last week and defeated there. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has tabled a set of amendments and my treatment of those amendments is based on the reasons for my introducing the Bill in the first place. It is perfectly simpleperhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not understand my answer.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend says, accurately, that our hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore tabled the amendment. My right hon. Friend is accurate in saying that our hon. Friend proposed it and spoke to it. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether our hon. Friend drafted the amendment?

Alun Michael: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore sought advice on how to draft amendments, as any wise Back Bencher would. It is for him to respond, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) respects our hon. Friend's motivation and his reasons for proposing the amendments.

Gerald Kaufman: Of course I respect my hon. Friend. He is an hon. Friend. I would respect my right hon. Friend if he would now answer directly the question that I put to him rather than saying that my hon. Friend sought advice. Who drafted the amendment that my hon. Friend moved?

Alun Michael: It is not my place to reply. I did not see the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend until I saw them printed in the amendment paper this morning.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It may be of assistance to the House to know that as a Back Bencher of two-and-a-half year's experience, it is beyond my ken to draft something like this on my own. I sought assistance. However, the principle behind it and the spirit of it, and the fact that I voted for the provisions originally, should not cause a disdainful light to be cast upon my reason for bringing the amendment forward. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) is not doing that.

Alun Michael: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not be suggesting anything of the sort.
	My motivation in bringing the Bill before the House in the first place was the same as that of my hon. Friend in bringing forward the amendment. It was to find a way for the House and for Parliament as a whole through this most divisive issue on which the division of opinion has been so sharp and in many ways destructive. I think that we have started well in this debate, despite the strength of views that we can hear in the contributions that are being made.
	I want to make one point strongly. As I did in introducing the Bill and since, the Government and I personally have sought to reduce the temperature and to find a way through this issue. I had hoped that the House of Lords, as a revising chamber, would have helped, but we must look at the record of decisions there from the pro-hunting side. As I have said, it voted down the middle-way option when it was before us. It sent nothing back to us last year although it had plenty of time to consider the Bill fully and return it to this place. In Committee in the House of Lords recently the other place voted through a series of quite extreme amendments that emasculated the Bill and did not turn it back into anything like the Bill that I introduced. It rejected the possibility of compromise last week. The language last night was not only unkind to Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State, but it ignored one simple fact: it is not this place that will insist on using the Parliament Act should that become necessary to resolve this issue, it will be the House of Lords that has provoked the application of that measure.
	Even at this late stage I ask Members of this place and those in another place to consider whether there is an opportunity for a less divisive way forward. Our motion to delay implementation until July 2006 was agreed by the House. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who supported that proposition wholeheartedly when it was before the House. It is now on the table for the House of Lords to agree to if the House votes for the Bill as it was sent to the Lords.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has tabled amendments that recreate the Bill that I introduced in this place. I still believe that after the offer was made there was the basis for a constructive way forward. It would have ended cruelty but provided a constructive window of opportunity for those who could show that their method of hunting was not cruel. My Bill was at that time the strongest ever put forward, but the amendment put forward my by hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) provided that it was still a workable piece of legislation.
	I make that point because there has been some criticism of the Bill as it went to the House of Lords, as if it was unworkable. Our decision after the House voted for my hon. Friend's amendment was to recommit the Bill to Committee to ensure that it was properly drafted, an effective piece of legislation and one that would work and would be simple in its application. The choice before the House tonight does not relate to a piece of legislation that is badly drafted. We put it into proper order.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Rob Marris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alun Michael: This is getting exciting.. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik).

Rob Marris: The Minister has tried very hard to seek compromise. May I suggest to him that it is almost impossible because people like me and many of my hon. FriendsI include the Minister in this, even though I shall vote against the amendmentconsider that the primary issue is that of cruelty. For many Opposition Members, howeverand this became clear in Committeethe primary issue is one of liberty. Their position is illogical, as they would allow cock fighting and bear baiting on the grounds of liberty. The primary issue is one of cruelty.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right, and that was acknowledged by the Countryside Alliance in discussions in which we tried to find a way forward. Obviously, there is a considerable difference of view about what constitutes cruelty, and what does not, but it is the starting point, as my hon. Friend rightly reiterates.

Lembit �pik: I understand the point that the Minister made about the amended Bill proposed by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), even if I disagree with his conclusions, but I would be grateful for clarification. Given that he has chosen to exclude stag hunting from the tests but to include fox hunting, is it fair to conclude that there are likely to be cases in which hunting with dogs or foxes is not necessarily cruel?

Alun Michael: That was not completely answered in the evidence that I have seen. It was certainly not completely answered in the Burns report, as Lord Burns himself made clear. I therefore proposed a method that would allow cases to be dealt with according to the principles that we set out in the Bill and through the hearing of evidence. Clearly, some cases are expected to succeed. On the evidence that I have seen there will only be a small number that do so, but that possibility is one of the strengths of the Bill that I drafted.

Andrew Turner: The right hon. Gentleman described the Bill as amended by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) as workable. Does he accept, however, that they both have consequences for the warp and weft of the countryside, particularly in an isolated constituency such as mine? Until a fortnight ago, the National Fallen Stock Company could not find anyone to collect dead stock from my constituency. The Isle of Wight Foxhounds, however, made a successful bid to do so. In its absence, there would be no one to collect dead stock, as required under the Government's legislation. What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to farmers in my constituency who fear that situation arising?

Alun Michael: I never quite understood why the farming industry generally did not embrace with enthusiasm the fallen stock scheme when it was originally proposed. The Isle of Wight Foxhounds is contracted to Government to provide a service. It does not offer that service out of the goodness of its heart, but there is no reason why that contractual relationship should cease in the event of legislation being passed.
	My contribution is longer than I would have wished as a result of the many interventions that I have accepted. However, at the end of the day, the will of the House must prevail, and everyone should respect its decision. Individual Members of Parliament, who are accountable to their constituents, should decide on a free vote what should be the law of the land. I am answerable to my conscience, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and every other Member in making our decision tonight. I hope that my arguments about seeking a less divisive way forward will be heard by Members on both sides of the House. However, it is certainly time for the House of Commons to fulfil a Labour manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. The issue will not stop being divisive, but everyone, whatever their point of view, should respect the decision that is made at the end of our debate tonight.

Andrew George: I am aware that we have little more than an hour remaining for our debate, so I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible. First, it appears that all Front Benchers will go into the Aye Lobby to support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), whom I congratulate on his courage and the way in which he made his case. Although there has been an obsession about whose hand held the pen or pressed the computer buttons when the amendment was written, the fact is that it is on the amendment paper. It has certainly helped us to reflect on the initiative.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore said that another place had been provocative in the way in which it had considered the Bill and in the amendments that it had tabled. I agree. Perhaps the House of Lords has taken the Mickey out of the Michael Bill, to coin a phrase. It signalled that it had misjudged the opportunity for a compromise or that it was not prepared to compromise. I hope the hon. Member for Ogmore is successful. He said that he hoped that all democrats would accept the democratic will of the House. I assume that that was a message to the other place, not just to this place, and I endorse that remark.
	My preferred option is much the same as the Minister'sthe Bill as it left Committee in February 2003. A great deal of helpful work was done on the Bill at that stage. I have tabled an amendment, which I do not claim to be the most wonderfully drafted amendment that ever appeared on the Order Paper, especially in relation to the Hunting Bill. The amendment links compensation and the commencement of the Bill, and I was a little disappointed that the Minister concentrated on the drafting of the amendment, rather than on the underlying principle.
	The Minister said that the cost to the taxpayer of establishing a registrar is likely to be about 10 million. If Parliament ultimately agreed to a Bill that involved a total ban, I do not believe that the level of compensation would exceed that figure in the first year, so I doubt whether the cost to the taxpayer would be greater than the Minister already envisages.
	We are discussing not an act of God, but an Act of Parliament. We can control the impact that it will have on those directly affected. We know from the Burns report, even though the figures in it are widely debated, that between 500 and 1,000 people would be directly affected by a total ban. I drafted the amendment in such a way as to give the Secretary of State powers that he or she may or may not choose to use to implement a compensation scheme and to allow for a delay in commencement until the closed season of 2006. It would give the Secretary of State the power to do either, both or neither. That is why I am disappointed that the Minister indicated that he would not use his gift to allow us to vote on it. I hope that he will listen to the debate on that point, that he will consider the fact that a large number of Members in this place and in another place are concerned about the potential impact, and that he will respond.
	The primary question is what effect a total ban, if implemented within a three-month period, would have on jobs, livelihoods, incomes and homes. We know that the likely impact on a large number of people will in some cases be catastrophic, and in some cases be significant.

David Drew: In the long and tortuous debate that we have had, that is a particularly important issue. As someone who is in favour of a ban, I believe that we must be responsible and consider the implications of a ban. On the hon. Gentleman's last point about housing, I asked a series of parliamentary questions to see whether it would be possible to get people who are employed by the hunt and in tied housing included in agricultural tenancies. At present that is not possible, and it ought to be looked at seriously. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. It is important that the Government and those who support a ban understand that a ban will have a direct effect, not on toffs, but on ordinary working people, who depend on hunting for their income, their livelihood and their home.

David Heath: My hon. Friend's point is incredibly important, whether one is for or against a ban. Some of my constituents are distressed at the thought of losing their livelihoods. I am not talking about people who sit on horses and engage in hunting as a sport; I am talking about people on low incomes in tied accommodation who will lose their jobs and their homes if the ban is implemented. The loss of property is not a narrow issue of human rights legislation; it is a matter of justice for those people, for whom this House should act in a proper way.

Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) intervened on the Minister on a point of principle and drew out the comparison between this Bill and the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. Interestingly, the Minister repeated the point, which he made in a debate last year, that those two pieces of legislation are different, because the 2000 Act affected people's property. However, the people affected by the 2000 Act had property, whereas the people about whom we are concerned largely do not have property. The issue concerns those people's livelihoods. It is strange that the Government are prepared to compensate people with property, who are well healed in comparison with people on low rural incomes who have few prospects.

Kevin McNamara: I have fought against tied cottages throughout my time in this House, and I share and appreciate the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Is the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) saying that the followers of hunting will throw their employees out of tied cottages if the Bill is enacted? Will the hon. Gentlemen who follow the hounds do that to their loyal employees, about whom they have spoken so much, so tearfully and so directly, and whom they pay so lousily?

Andrew George: May I correct the hon. Gentleman in one respect? I have followed the hunt on many occasions in the past, and I voted for the Minister's compromise licensing approach. I cannot speak for huntsI am sure that the many hunts that are disappointed with my position would not want me to speak on their behalfand it is not for me to double guess or anticipate the likely outcome of the circumstances in which many people will find themselves.

Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members assume that people will be thrown from their properties. If that is the case, what will the property owners do with their properties? Surely, it would be as well for them to sit on the properties and let people pay rent.

Andrew George: The case would have to be made, and appeals can be made if such cases are turned down. If the matter were in dispute, it would ultimately be considered at the tribunal.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of comprehension on the part of Labour Members concerning the loss of income and the natural requirement for people who own tied cottages to ensure that they maintain an income means that there is a case for compensation? Does he agree that if Members who set their faces so sternly against compensation were considering another industry, such as coalmining, they would hold a different view?

Andrew George: My hon. Friend is right. There are many imponderables and many cases could be made for compensation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The accusation by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) shows that, as usual, Labour Members are ignorant of the facts of hunting. Often the dwellings that house hunt employees are not owned by wealthy landowners but by the hunt itself, which if it is not hunting will have no income and will have no option but to sell its assets.
	Will the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) support my call to the Minister during the previous debate in the House for a compensation scheme for workers who lose their jobs?

Andrew George: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the purpose of my amendment is to achieve just that. It is wide ranging in its proposals; as the Minister suggested, it may be too wide ranging.

Rob Marris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I discussed it with him in Standing Committee, many Labour Members have some sympathy with the position that he is putting forward and like to think that we have some understanding of what may befall people should a ban pass through the Houses of Parliament this week. Does he accept, however, that were his amendment to be passed, the Parliament Acts could not be used and those of us who wish for a ban would thereby be disappointed? Does he therefore agree that a better solution would be to try to get his amendment put forward in another arena, such as in the other place or in a Finance Bill or an animal welfare Bill, not in the House of Commons tonight?

Andrew George: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not have it in my gift to divide the House on this issuethat is in the power of the Minister.
	I do not accuse those who take a different position on hunting from that which is expressed largely by Conservative Members of being unsympathetic to those people who are likely to be directly affected. Although the Minister will not use his power to allow us to divide on the amendment, it can be considered as a probing amendment. I hope that the other place is listening and will consider the possibility of reintroducing it at a later stage.

Tony Banks: May I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris)? I supported the principle of compensation when we discussed the Bill previously, but the moment has passed. My hon. Friend put his finger precisely on the point: we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. If the House of Lords discussed compensation, it escaped me. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have other opportunities to raise the issue again, perhaps as a result of the Bill that the Government may introduce in the new Session to move the date to July 2006.

Andrew George: I do not agree that the moment has passed. In fact, the moment has arrived if we are in a situation whereby there is to be a precipitate ban within three months and no compensation scheme is in place. I would hope that the other place will consider the issue and, having taken up a position that is implacably opposed to that of the Commons, introduce, as part of a compromise, a clause to allow for appropriate compensation. Or perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right and the Minister will be honourable and introduce new legislation to deal with that in the next Session. I am well aware that many other hon. Members want to comment on this and many other issues relating to the Bill and the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore. I hope that the Minister is listening and that he will speak to those involved in the debate in the other place, so that the issue will not be left as it is tonight.

Gerald Kaufman: I respect the sincerity of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), but the basis of his argument gives rise to two questions. First, during the entire discussion of the ban on hunting, opponents of the ban have sought to jerk our tears by talking about the jobs that will be lost. The Countryside Alliance and similar groups all say that these jobs are at stake and will be lost if there is a ban. Are we saying that the people who are now exploiting the possibility of job losses are such ghastly employers that they would throw their employees out of work and home? That is the basis of the argument about tied cottages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said.

Several hon. Members: rose

Gerald Kaufman: I want to proceed for a moment. If I may say so, with total respect to the Chair, two thirds of the time has gone by and these few words that I am about to utter are the first from someone who supports the Bill as sent from the House of Commons to the House of Lords.
	Secondly, not only is it the implication of what the hon. Member for St. Ives said that hunt employers are horrible people with no sense of loyalty to the people they employ, but he is asking to make them a special case. The estimate of Burns, much quoted by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), is that up to 800 direct jobs will be lost700 direct jobs employing 800 people. Well, 1,100 workers at Jaguar in Coventry will, if the employers have their way, certainly lose their jobs and not over a short period, but at a stroke. Why should hunt employees receive compensation other than redundancy payments if the Jaguar workers will receive only the redundancy payments due to them under the law?

Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman's first point presupposes that those who are campaigning to continue hunting have control over the livelihoods of the people who are likely to be affected. On the second point, he fails to accept the point that I madeI thought very clearlythat we are talking this evening about an Act of Parliament, not the vagaries of commerce.

Gerald Kaufman: So that is all right, then. The Jaguar workers can say that their jobs do not matter, because it is not an Act of Parliament throwing them out of work, just selfish, nasty capitalist employers. All right then, good for the Jaguar workers.
	As I was saying, we are dealing with an issue that has been active ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) moved his Bill early in the last Parliament. It is now, of course, as it was then, an issue about the ethos of hunting and the cruelty of tearing wild creatures to pieces for pleasure. That is the essence of what we have been campaigning about. Although that is the heart of the Bill, there are now other issues, as the debate has moved on.
	First, there is the supremacy of the rule of law. We now have people saying that they will disobey the law if the Bill sent to the House of Lords becomes an Act. Not only that, we have seen people behaving in the most loutish and illegal way right now. I am not talking only about the deplorable invasion of this Chamber. I am talking about the injuries inflicted on police officers in Parliament square when we debated the Bill two months ago. Louts and hooligans inflicted serious physical injury on a very considerable number of officers, according to information published by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. If that is what they can do when a Bill is merely going through Parliament, what on earth will they do if the Bill becomes law in the form in which we sent it to the House of Lords? Whether or not it supports the legislation, the House of Commons therefore faces a very serious question about respect for the rule of law.
	Towards the end of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to another matterthe supremacy of the will of the House of Commons. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked me to serve on the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords, he gave me terms of reference to the effect that any such reform should be based on the principle that the House of Commons is supreme in a bicameral legislative arrangement. However, the other place has rejected the will of the House of Commons as it has been expressed on this matter over the years, and twice in connection with this Bill.
	We must be clear that the Parliament Acts are not about the supremacy of Government policy. When the Liberal Government introduced the original Act more than 90 years ago, they laid down that the important point was the supremacy of the House of Commons. When I served on the royal commission on the House of Lords, we discussed whether Bills originating in that House should be subject to the Parliament Acts. Our answer was that they should not, as the Parliament Acts were not about ensuring that the Government's will prevailed. They were about ensuring that the will of the House of Commons prevailed.
	I shall set out the consequences that flow from that. If this House of Commons rejects both the Lords amendments and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the position will be that the Bill that was sent to the House of Lords two months ago will again be the one that that House must reconsider. We are dealing with more than hunting or the rule of law. We are dealing with one of the basic principles of our evolving form of government in this country. For that reason, if for no otheralthough, as I said, there are other reasonsit is essential that the will of the House of Commons prevail.
	Another factor has emerged as the Bill has gone through the House, starting from the moment my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Second Reading debate. That is the issue of trust. In my view, that is something that we must resolve, and insist on.
	Like many of my hon. Friends who have been active on this issue, I receive a very heavy postbag of letters on this matter. A very large number of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting, as well as people from urban areas. What people sayand they have done so even in the letters that I received this morningis that the Prime Minister promised a ban seven and a half years ago. My correspondents say that they now look to me to bring that ban about.
	I am a great fan of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as everyone in this Chamber knows. When I reply to my correspondentsand I reply to them allI say that the Prime Minister never promised a ban, although he has gone on record as saying that he favours a total ban. I tell people that what he promised was to give Parliament the chance to legislate for a ban. That is what we are about now.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorised statements from 10 Downing street earlier this week saying that he was in favour of a compromise. It is very difficult to understand what compromise he is actually supporting. The Bill, if amended in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore suggests, would be far from a compromise. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs has pointed out with very great clarity, it is in essence the Bill that he introduced in the last Session, which we threw out and have thrown out twice.
	The Bill is not, therefore, a compromise: a compromise involves the Government moving from their original position. Yet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is asking the House of Commons to maintain the Government's position. I am totally at a loss to understand how my right hon. Friend can vote for the amendment offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore on the basis that he wants a compromise. To anyone who has read my hon. Friend's amendment, it is clear that it is not a compromise, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs, speaking a little while ago, talking about the Bill that he originally introduced, to which we would revert if my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore had his amendment accepted, saidI took down his wordsMy Bill was not a compromise Bill.
	Of course, it was not a compromise Bill. It was an effort by the Government, which many of us deplored, to evade a total ban. I am not questioning the faith of my right hon. Friend the Minister: we know of the care he took and the hearings he held. When it came right down to it, however, the Government introduced that Bill not as a compromise but as a settled policy that they asked the House of Commons to endorse. There was a bit of finagling to try to manoeuvre the House of Commons into accepting it, but when it came to it, we threw it out. The Prime Minister may regard it as a compromise, but it is not one. It is the Government's original Bill, which we have thrown out twice.

Alun Michael: As always, I admire my right hon. Friend's clarity of expression, and I certainly do not want to cross philosophical swords with him. What I meant was that, in introducing the Bill as I originally did, there was no compromise in terms of cruelty. It sought to base the legislation on principle and on evidence. Of course, many people, myself included, have suggested that it would be a good thing if we were able to move away from the extremes of view that the Bill has provoked. There are, in other words, two senses of the word compromise, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would accept.

Gerald Kaufman: I do not challenge a word that my right hon. Friend said. But we are not dealing with what he said; we are dealing with the authorised statements from 10 Downing street earlier this week, and they said that the Prime Minister wants a compromise. As I understand it, and it will be interesting to see what happens when the Division bell rings, the Prime Minister is going to vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. This is, is it not, a syllogism? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants a compromise; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is going to vote for the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore; therefore, in the eyes of the Prime Minister, the amendment is a compromise; but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs says that it definitely is not a compromise. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will account to himself for the way in which he has traduced the logic that the Prime Minister has put forwardsomething that I would never dare to do myself.

David Taylor: My right hon. Friend's contributions are always well considered and carry great weight in the House and the country. Will he at some stage consider the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)? Many of us are quite attracted by his idea. Can my right hon. Friend say whether intellectually, morally, legally and politically it differs very much from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, which provided for compensation of the sort suggested in the amendment?

Gerald Kaufman: No, it does not differ, in any of the adverbs that my hon. Friend has just uttered. On the other hand, as my hon. FriendI am sorry I have forgotten his constituency[Hon. Members: Wolverhampton, South-West.] Wherever he represents it is brilliant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out, if that amendment were accepted, it would tarnish the Bill and we could not get it through under the Parliament Acts. Therefore, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), must find other choices even though it may well be the case that a number of us sympathise with him.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman and I obviously differ about the Bill, but does he agree that what the Prime Minister probably believes is that in some circumstances it is acceptable to kill a fox with dogs? That is the only way to interpret what the Prime Minister has said.

Gerald Kaufman: I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not choose the hon. Gentleman as his first interpreter and analyst. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join the Labour party and try to get a job, it may be that my right hon. Friend will look favourably on him. The hon. Gentleman would be a good swap for the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden).
	What is the rationale for compromise? On 18 March last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the House of Commons to vote for war against Iraq. He was ready courageouslywhether controversially is a different matterto stand up with armed force against an evil dictator. If he did not ask us to compromise with Saddam Hussein, is he really asking us to compromise with the Countryside Alliance? Is that the Prime Minister's wish? We know that he believes in a big tent, but that one would have to be enormous. P. T. Barnum himself could not construct one big enough.
	The animal welfare organisations took an opinion poll that showed that more than 90 per cent. of those who took part in the Countryside Alliance march vote Conservative. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said earlier that, if people believe in hunting, they will vote Conservative. It is one thing for the Prime Minister and the Government to want a great national consensus on all kinds of issues, but a great national consensus in which they appease law-breaking Tories while rejecting the view of the parliamentary Labour party does not seem to me to be what we fought the last general election on.
	I have always been in my right hon. Friend's big tent. Indeed, I have been at the centre of it, warming myself on the glow from the furnace in the middle of it. I hope that he is ready to listen both to his right hon. and hon. Friends who have voted overwhelmingly for a ban, and to some brave Opposition Members, rather than to the louts and hooligans who are the spearhead of the Countryside Alliance.

Tony Wright: rose

Gerald Kaufman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I shall conclude as I want to give others the chance to speak.

Tony Wright: I certainly do not want to interpret the Prime Minister, but perhaps he is trying, in his own inimitable way, to rescue us from the irreconcilables on both sides and to find some genuinely common ground. In doing that, I suspect that he reflects the views of the majority of people.

Gerald Kaufman: If so, it is not the famous Oscar Wilde quotation about the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable, but the ineffable in pursuit of the unachievable.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech on the Queen's Speech last November, promised us that he wanted to resolve the issue in this Parliament. I say to the House and to my right hon. Friend that the only way to resolve it is to enact the Bill passed by the House of Commons in September. I have some hopes of being re-elected at the next general election, so I can tell the House that, if the issue is not resolved in that way, and only in that way, we shall carry on fighting and it will not be resolved. Tonight is the night; this is our chance. Let us chuck out everything on the Order Paper and vote for the Bill as we decided we wanted it two months ago, and by the end of the week we will have a Hunting Act that enacts a total ban.

Francis Maude: It is usually a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), but he has spoken for 21 minutes without at any stage addressing the merits of the case, which is disappointing. I normally have great respect for him.
	I remain opposed to a ban on hunting. I have not spoken on the issue in the House before but was moved to do so after listening to the speech made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke movingly and persuasively. He said one thing that saddened me, however. At the end of his speech, he felt it necessary to thank the House for its tolerance of his dissent from the view of his colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party. He was closer to them than me, but I could feel waves of visceral hostility emanating from them. That seemed to be a microcosm of the degeneration of the debate on this issue over the years. The debate does not revolve around the rational assessment of evidence, but flows from blind and destructive dogma.
	There are arguments from different sides about cruelty and liberty, but the argument is about both. The cruelty issue is central and we cannot do much better than turn to what Lord Burns said. After all, he and his colleagues on the committee spent a great deal of time looking at the issues and assessing the evidence. He said recently in another place that the evidence was inconclusive and that to use the Parliament Act to force through a ban in the face of evidence that was, at least, inconclusive was unacceptable. The case on cruelty has not been made.
	I have only a short point to make on the issue of liberty. In a free country, there should be a huge gap between disapproval of an activity and wanting to ban it. A ban is the mark of an authoritarian society, not one based on freedom, tolerance and respect. If the House opts for a complete ban on hunting, and forces it through against the wishes of a majority of Members of Parliamentbecause that would be the casewe will have inflicted damage on the standing of Parliament and, let us face it, Parliament does not stand high in the respect of the nation. We should not do it.

Tony Banks: May I say to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that, given that there is clearly not going to be reconciliation and compromise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, if it comes down to it, surely the views of the elected Chamber must prevail. We are the people who will have to go out into our constituencies and defend our voting record. Many Labour Members represent rural constituencies where there are hunts, and they will have to justify what they have done, defend their position and look for votes, and I suspect that they will get them.
	A pro-hunting Labour peer told me, Under no circumstances must you allow us to win on this, because if you do we will ride roughshod over your legislation at any time. [Interruption.] I am just saying what he said. In the end, it is a matter of the will of the elected House against the will of the unelected House, and I should have thought that anyone in this House would agree on that. I would have said precisely the same had I been on the other side of the argument, because in the end I am a House of Commons man, and as an elected Member I believe that the will of this House should prevail. We have to defend our actions in the constituencies; the Lords do not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) might remember when I spoke in his area and supported him, and I have no reason to doubt my judgment in supporting him in the House. Tonight, he put forward a view that has received minority support, but we defend his right to do so. What we found objectionable was the way that he then characterised our position. That was the point where he began to lose us. By all means stand up and defend the position, but do not cast aspersions on the position of those who do not agree.
	I am finding myself in a minority of one in the Gambling Committee

David Winnick: Good jobyou are in a minority of one.

Tony Banks: Maybe so. We already have another disagreement going on here, but I do not seek to discredit or misrepresent the views of those who do not agree with me.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore more or less suggested that this was a class issue. We have heard this time and again. I wrote down red-coated hunters. I do not really care what they are dressed inI have not the foggiest idea what they wear. I have made this point time and again; I do not even like the word toffs. The fact is that if all of those who hunted were members of the Transport and General Workers Union, voted Labour and supported Chelsea, I would still vote against them because in the end, for me, it is a matter of morality. Killing animals for pleasure is wrong. It is immoral and must be stopped.
	I know many people who hunt and whom I consider to be friends of mine. Some are Opposition Members, including a number of prominent Conservatives, but I still feel that they need help. I regard myself as a sort of friendly psychiatrist in this, and I think the first way that we help those who are doing something wrong is to stop them doing it and then we can put them into some sort of counselling. [Hon. Members: Rehab.] Rehab is a much better word. I do believe that we have to reassert our position tonight.
	The last point I would like to make is that we cannot vote for a licensing system. We did not do so for the simple reason that a licensing system would still allow hunting to go on. Then, in the event of a Conservative Government being electedone day, deplorable though that might sound to Labour Members, a Conservative Government will be electedall they will need to do is touch the old fine tuning and we will get back hunting in its totality as it is today. Therefore we cannot vote for a licensing system, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who I understand will make a rare appearance here tonight to voteI would not do it if I were him, but of course I am not likely to be him and I certainly hope that he will not do it. I hope that he will remember that this is a free vote, and that he will not look curiously at those who do not support him in the Lobby tonight. I suspect that he will be in a minority on the Labour side, and he will be with colleagues from the Opposition. That is his choice, however, because it is a free vote.
	We cannot support a licensing system, because it will eventually end with hunting being fully restored. Those who want to restore hunting have a simple choice now. If we go to July 2006, a general election will intervene. If you want to have hunting back, Mr. Deputy Speaker, vote Conservative at the next election. I suspect that that will be another reason why the Conservatives will not be elected.

Edward Garnier: What we have learned from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is that the argument tonight is not about the rural economy, the environment or the need to maintain social cohesion in the countryit is not even about animal welfare. It is about the exercise of naked political power and the dispute about how that power should be exercised. That is the argument taking place in the ranks of the Labour party.
	The fact that the Minister has not advanced the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) himself as a Government amendment speaks volumes about the relationship between his Department and No. 10. It is interesting that it requires a Back Bencher of recent election, the hon. Member for Ogmore, to advance a so-called compromisesome people do not think that it is a compromiseand a case on behalf of the Prime Minister when one would have thought that a fellow Minister would be willing to do so.
	It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton found time to amuse us with one of his classic little vitriolic speeches. They are wonderful to listen to; they do not tell us very much, other than that he likes to put on a display from time to time. Fair enough. May he enjoy his searchlight fame in the circus and the big tent that he so proudly claims to inhabit. However, it is important that the House realises, before we ban hunting tonight, if that is what the House decides to do, that it has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the issue that we ought to be discussing.
	The discussion that we are having tonight has nothing whatever to do with any of the arguments that I have engaged in since 1992, when I was first elected. It has nothing whatever to do with the arguments that were deployed for and against a ban in all the debates in Committee on all the hunting Bills that we have had to deal with.
	I have argued with the Minister both in his position on the Front Bench during the debates on the most recent Bill and when he was a Back Bencher in the uncomfortable hiatus that he had between being the Secretary of State for Wales and working his passage back into government, but it is down to the hon. Member for Ogmore to save the Prime Minister and allow him a way out, thus allowing him to demonstrate who is in charge.
	I accept that not all my constituentsthe people whom I representsupport hunting, but most of them do not want a ban on hunting. It is regrettable, however, that we are left in this rather dirty, filthy little arrangement that is being sorted out for the benefit of the parliamentary Labour party. It is a pity that this is where we have come to: an arrangement that allows the Labour party to feel comfortable with itself, allowing it to sit with itself and to enjoy its own company for a few short moments, whereas real people outside are trying to earn an honest living and live a lawful life without being interfered with or bossed about by those who do not want to know and who do not want to understand because they think that they know. It seems utterly regrettable that the House of Commons should allow itself to be addressed in that way by that sort of argument.
	I am afraid that we are only talking about the exercise of power. We are only talking about the arrogance of power, and in the light of that there is very little more that we can say on behalf of those who wish to continue to hunt and to carry out the activities and the sport that they have enjoyed for many years.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray): we are being presented with the least-worst option, and I hope that we can get it through the House. I shall do so with a heavy heart, but I will support the hon. Member for Ogmore. I am only sorry that the Minister did not feel able to introduce that amendment himself. This will be a black day for a great many people, and I do not think that any Member should feel proud of how we have reached this position.

Kevin McNamara: For the majority of people in this country, and for those of us who have campaigned over the years to see the end of hunting with dogs, this will be a great day. This issue goes across party, across class and across areas of the countryurban and rural. All the time that I have campaigned on the issue, I have been surprised by the overwhelming support that I have had from rural areas, including from farmers' wives who have said, My husband daren't open his mouth, but he doesn't like the hunt going across the land. He knows that he can't do anything about it, because he is a tenant farmer. This is a great day.
	The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that we had not discussed the merits of a licensing system, of unlicensed hunting and of abandoning hunting altogether. That is what this debate and the votes will be all about. They are important matters. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) saidI am glad that he saw Her Majesty before tonight, because I am not sure whether he will see her after tonightthe issue goes to the root of what we are all about.
	We are told that a majority of Members in Parliament voted against the Bill, but a majority of the elected Members have overwhelmingly and repeatedly voted for it. I have often tabled amendments and not had them carried, so I know that I have to accept the will of the elected majority. That is what it is all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and my right hon. Friend the Minister know that that is the case.
	I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore felt it necessary to table the amendments, because we have gone through them twice. I understand that he might have had some help in drafting them. In nearly 40 years in the House, I have never had any help from the Government in drafting amendments. None the less, we are all entitled to get help where we can.
	My hon. Friend echoed a point that had been made before. He spoke about the teachers, the doctors and the constables in his constituency who mount horses and follow the hunt in their serried ranks. Quite apart from what that might mean about empty surgeries, burglars on the streets and classrooms without teachers, he says that we are making criminals of those involved. [Interruption.]

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin McNamara: No, I have been in the Chamber a long time, unlike the hon. Gentleman and some of the other Conservative Members who have been interjecting.
	Apart from the spuriousness of the points that my hon. Friend made in giving the impression that all teachers, policemen and doctors are in favour of blood sports, there is a more important issue. Nobody will be made a criminal by the Bill if it becomes an Act. In exactly the same way as the ownership of property, whereby nobody makes themselves a criminal unless they steal or break the law, nobody becomes a criminal unless they break the law passed by this House. It is for people to decide whether they want to obey the law. That point is of utmost importance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton said, this issue is about two things: the supremacy of the elected House and the upholding of the rule of law.
	We have been told that the issue is all about the Labour party, but I am sure that if it is about the passage of the Parliament Act, it is all about the Liberal party. Many people might think that it is about fair legislation, taxation and home rule for Ireland. That is a different matter, but the Tories have always advocated strange arguments.
	If the Bill brings peace and harmony to the majority of my colleagues and comrades in the Labour party, that is a great collateral benefit. All Labour Members would support that. What is more important than the peace and harmony of the Labour party, important though I think that is, is the will of the elected representatives of this country and the rule of law. That is what we are voting for tonight.

David Cameron: I want to take issue with something that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said. He said that what we can call the Ogmore amendment is not a compromise, but it is a compromise between those who want to ban hunting completely and those who, like me, want to defend it. The compromise option is far more similar to banning hunting than defending it.
	A lot has been said about the House of LordsHouse of Lords bashing is an easy blood sport. If this House sends a Bill providing for regulated hunting to the House of Lords at this stage of a Session, the Lords can either engage with the Bill and work with the House of Commons on it, or reject the Bill, in which case a total ban will go through. Endlessly bashing the Lords makes for a sterile debate.
	We heard a great speech from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke bravely. The question for the House of Commons tonight is whether we can compromise. Let me make it absolutely clear that I support the freedom to hunt and I oppose the regulation scheme. The scheme would lead to massive unnecessary state interference and would ban almost all hunting. It would allow hunting in some places rather than others, often in an unfair and haphazard manner. However, I recognise the power of the convictions held by thosethey are mainly Labour Memberswho want to ban hunting, although I disagree with them. They have promised their constituents that they will ban hunting just as I have made promises to my constituents that I will defend it.. If we are to compromise, we must both change our positions in tonight's vote. I am willing to do that because I recognise the force of their convictions and think that we must try to compromise, but do they?
	Let me explain why those hon. Members should compromise tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) put it extremely well when he said that there was a huge difference between disapproving of something and wanting to make it a crime. The argument about cruelty has not been proved. Lord Burns, the person whom the Prime Minister and the Government asked to examine that matter, has made it clear that there is no cruelty case for an absolute ban on hunting.
	The real reason why I plead with Labour Members to think about compromising is that the morality of our actions depends on their consequencesacts have consequences. The one thing that has come out of all our debates on fox hunting is that a total ban will not save the life of a single fox, because they will be shot or gassed in larger numbers than at present. The consequences of an effective total ban would be wounded foxes, dead hounds, unemployed hunt staff, empty livery stables and rural businesses hit by a decline in trade. Although I would never advise anyone to break the law, if the ban is not effective and people continue to hunt, we will face the consequences of law breaking, problems with policing and the other difficulties that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) cited in his effective intervention on the Minister.
	Irrespective of whether a ban would work, there is a strong case for compromise. Labour Members should consider such a compromise because they should think about what will happen to people if the ban goes through. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the Bill does not make a criminal of anyone, but it would criminalise thousands of people throughout the country who have carried out an activity that was not against the law for generations.
	Even at this late hour, I ask Labour Members to think about the fact that a total ban would lead to a divided and angry countryside. We must ask why the Prime Minister has changed his mind, because he was always in favour of a ban. Although I cannot read his mind, I think that he is worried about having to lead a divided and angry country, which is what would happen under a total ban.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore has given us the opportunity to compromise. The compromise is wholly unsatisfactory, but it would be better than the division and anger that a ban would cause. I hope that hon. Members will think about that even at this late stage and make one last try for compromise before embarking on a ban that would lead to an angry and bitter countryside.

Tony Wright: I speak as someone who dislikes blood sports intensely. I cannot understand why people engage in them and think that it demeans the human condition, so instinctively I am in favour of stopping them. It would also be politically convenient for me to sign up to the proposition that we should stop them.
	When the argument started some years ago I set myself one test: to answer the question of whether there is something uniquely cruel about hunting with dogs that would justify banning it. If there was, I would have no hesitation in doing that and I would not be detained by the arguments that it would cause a loss of livelihood or encroach on liberties. I would have known the answer to those questions. However, as someone who instinctively wanted to be on that side, and who has sought to follow the arguments and to read the evidence, I have to say that that test has not been passed.
	It is the deliberate lack of attention to the evidence that troubles me most. In addition, there is the suggestion that there is a superior moral sensibility on the part of those who want a complete ban. That cannot be right because people who have taken different views over the years have different moral sensibilities. Just down the road from Ogmore, Aneurin Bevana man who was neither deficient in class warriorship nor in moral sensibilitythought that a ban could not be justified.
	The question is: if the test has not been passedin a sense, the Minister acknowledged thatwhy should we persist in insisting on a ban rather than regulation? I can only think that it is either because we have got ourselves imprisoned in a position in which we think we have to do that or because we are implicitly saying that we have a greater sensibility on the cruelty issue than people who take a different view, and I simply reject that.
	There is no question but that this House of Commons would be justified in applying the Parliament Act, in asserting its supremacy by doing what it wants to do and in eschewing any common ground by rejecting compromise. All that is possible. The question is whether it would be sensible. It would feel terribly exciting this week and people would march through the Lobby with a lighter step. However, one of the first laws of this place is that we should not do things that we know are undoable; we should not do things that we know are unenforceable; we should not do things that will not carry a substantial number of our population with us. If we do something knowing all that, with the evidential test not having been passed, I am afraid that in the long term there will be consequences that we shall all come to regret.
	We can do that. I am sure that we shall do that. I have turned up here often to vote for the Bill. I am going to try to vote for it again tonight because it is sensible, but it will not be embraced. We will continue on the course that the House set some time ago. It can do it. It will do it. The question is whether it is sensible to do it.

Lembit �pik: The Bill is not about animal welfare. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said on 24 November 2003:
	It is not a matter of great significance in . . . animal welfare, but it has become totemic.
	A ban on hunting with dogs is not about public opinion. The majority of people are opposed to criminalising those who go hunting with dogs. Frankly, if we are going to ban things and the majority of people do not support us in that, the Labour party, which 58 per cent. of the electorate voted against at the last election, should be banned as well, but I support to the death its right to exist.
	The debate is not about the evidence in favour of a ban. Five hundred and sixty members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have made clear their belief that a ban on hunting with dogs is contrary to the interests of animal welfare. The debate is not primarily based on evidence from those who support a ban.
	I am not sure whether hon. Members recognise that the Bill advocated by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) will not prevent all hunting with dogs, as people think. It will not be illegal to use a terrier underground, as long as the purpose is to protect game birds, but it will be a criminal offence if the purpose is to protect farm livestock or rare birds. Under the Bill, it will be illegal for one's dog to catch a hare, but not for it to catch a rabbit; it will be illegal for one's dog to kill a mouse, but not for it to kill a rat. How on earth can any supporter of the Bill think that that is reasonable legislation?
	Many of us have supported the middle way group and fought with small resources a great battle to introduce evidence into the discussion, but, to our great frustration, people are not willing to listen to that evidence even now. Is the hon. Member for West Ham even aware of the Kreeger report, which was done in the 1990s and which showed that a fox is under greater stress when it is hunting than when it is hunted? [Hon. Members: Oh!] The hon. Members who jeer probably did not know until this minute that the Kreeger report even existed.
	Are the hon. Members who want to ban hunting with dogs aware of the research that we sponsored that indicates surprisingly high wounding rates when foxes are shot compared with when they are hunted with dogs? Whether we like it or not, with dogs, it is all or nothing; with guns[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must be fair and give the hon. Gentleman a hearing.

Lembit �pik: With dogs, it is all or nothingthere is no wounding rate. With guns, foxes often die an agonisingly painful death. That fact has not even been considered by many of the right hon. and hon. Members who have just now come into the Chamber to vote, without having seen the evidence.
	The middle way group has worked hard, not to achieve a victory, but to achieve a solution that is in the wider interests of the country and in the specific interest of animal welfare. Nothing has been more irritating than the almost visceral unwillingness of those who favour a ban to entertain even the slight possibility that there is evidence-based research to show that a ban on hunting with dogs will increase suffering in the countryside, not reduce it.
	I have worked hard to convince the public and hon. Members that ours is the right way to go, as have my colleagues in other parties, whose efforts I salute. I stand here feeling extremely disappointed: once again, we stand on the brink of a vote based on prejudice and not on fact, on victory and not animal welfarea vote that more than anything is based on the desire to win and pay back the Conservatives for their decisions on the miners and other things that their Government did in the 1980s. Tonight's vote is a test of whether we

Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Give way!

Lembit �pik: No, I will not give way, especially not to the right hon. Lady.
	Tonight's vote will be a test of whether we are guided primarily by our emotions or by factswhether we care more about winning battles from the past than about improving animal welfare in the countryside in future. I, for one, will with a heavy heart support the proposal made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), because it is the best that we are likely to get, but I assure the House that millions watching tonight will judge the House on its ability to make the right decisions rather than prejudiced decisions.
	At the end of the day, we will see whether those who support the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the League Against Cruel Sports will be happy with the increase in animal suffering that results from the simple fact that Members of Parliament were not willing to listen to the arguments advanced by the middle way group and others. It is a matter of great regret that, after 700 hours of debate in two Houses, most of those who support a ban still do not have even the slightest idea of what the research has told us.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr Speaker proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, purusant to Order (this day)
	The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to
	It being more than three hours after the commencment of proceedings, Mr Speaker out the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Mr. Speaker: I call the Minister to move a motion in relation to the remaining Lords amendments.

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That this House agrees en bloc to Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 43, 45, 46 and 52 to 54.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For clarity, is it disagrees?[Hon. Members: Noagrees.] Order. I wish that hon. Members would calm down. This is not the first time that I have tried to assist hon. Members on both sides of the House. I must make sure that I heard correctly. Perhaps we should do it again.

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendments.

Hon. Members: No. Agrees.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be calm. Mr. Soames, we must be calm. It was a slip of the tongue. The Question is, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 2 to 43, 45, 46 and 52 to 54.

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 173.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments disagreed to.
	Amendments proposed: (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 43, 45, 46 and 52 to 54[Alun Michael.]
	Question put, That the amendments be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments No. 44 and Nos. 47 to 51[Alun Michael.]
	The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 170.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 to 54: Mr Nick Ainger, Peter Bradley, Andrew George, Mr. James Gray and Alun Michael; Alun Michael to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.[Mr. Ainger.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PETITIONS
	  
	Bridleway Bridge (Berkshire)

David Rendel: I should like to present a petition on behalf of 55 residents who live in and around the area concerned that reads:
	The Petition of Mr. Michael MacEwen and others.
	Declares that the Bridleway Bridge (Bridge number 9), spanning the A34 and the Oxford Road (south of Chieveley, Berkshire) urgently requires painting and/or cladding.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to take steps to ensure that the Bridleway Bridge is painted and/or clad and thereafter properly maintained.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

Parmjit Dhanda: This petition is signed by 762 residents of Gloucestershire, all of whom have had their names printed in the local newspaper, The Citizen, today and is supported by my Gloucestershire colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ).
	The petition states:
	The petition of the residents of Gloucestershire declares their support for the soldiers of the Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment; their recognition of the great history of the Glorious Glosters, spanning more than 300 years; their pride in the Glosters' unique Back Badge, which was won when soldiers fought back to back against Napoleon's troops at the Battle of Alexandria in 1801; and their belief that the Back Badge is part of the military heritage of the Glorious Glosters, of which Gloucestershire people are proud.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the campaign backed by local veterans, the Royal British Legion, residents and The Gloucester Citizen newspaper to retain the Back Badge.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

DIABETES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

David Amess: It is my very good fortune to have the opportunity to debate the subject of diabetes with the Minister on the very day when the Government have introduced the White Paper on public health. It could not be more relevant: Sunday was world diabetes day. This year's theme was obesity, and I am sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that the Health Committee has done some splendid work on our inquiry into obesity because, as all hon. Members know, obesity is very closely linked to the increase in diabetes. Indeed, Claire Francis of Diabetes UK said:
	The scale of the problem was acknowledged by the EU Health Council of Ministers when they last met in June.
	The Council stated that the situation in Europe is very serious.
	Unfortunately, there is no cure for diabetesyet more and more people are being diagnosed with itand the first question on which I want the Minister to share some thoughts with the House is how far are we along the road of research into eventually finding a cure. Some good quality work must be going on among our major drug companies. According to Diabetes UK, since 1996, the number of people diagnosed with diabetes has increased from 1.4 million to 1.8 million, and it is estimated that almost 3 million people will be suffering from diabetes by the end of the decade. There has been a huge increase, and almost 1 million people are undiagnosed.
	There are two types of diabetes. Type 1 is insulin-dependent diabetes, which has an early onset in childhood and patients are treated with insulin. It is not associated with obesity. Type 2 diabetesnon-insulin-dependent diabeteshas a later onset. Patients still produce some insulin, but that is inadequate. Blood sugar levels are controlled through diet, exercise, medication or different combinations of these. This is very much associated with obesity.
	I draw to the House's attention a paragraph in our report on obesity. It said:
	Around two-thirds of the population of England are overweight or obese. Obesity has grown by almost 400 per cent. in the last 25 years and on present trends will soon surpass smoking as the greatest cause of premature loss of life. It will entail levels of sickness that will put enormous strains on the health service. On some predictions, today's generation of children will be the first for more than a century for whom life-expectancy falls.
	That is absolutely shocking testimony to the way things are. The report adds:
	Obesity is associated with many health problems including coronary heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure, osteoarthritis, back pain and psychological damage. The strong association between obesity and cancer has only recently come to light.
	We estimate that the economic costs of obesity are between 3.3 billion and 3.7 billion a year.
	Most of the 1.8 million diabetics in the United Kingdom are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. This is attributed to an ageing population and an ever-increasing number of overweight and obese people. Many Members of the House will know of close relatives who have diabetes, and a number of their constituents will be diabetics. The issue is relevant to all 659 Members of the House. Serious health problems include heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, circulation problems, nerve damage, kidney damage and eye damage. There is an even greater risk for the diabetics who are obese, who smoke and who are not physically active. Controlling diabetes is not that difficult. Complications can be reduced by controlling blood glucose and blood pressure levels through eating healthily and doing regular exercise.
	The next point that I want to share with the Minister is that of food labelling. I understand that today's Government White Paper touched on the subject, but I feel strongly that there is not in supermarkets as big of range as there should be of products that can help people with diabetes. Has the Minister anything to say about that? The healthy food range on sale in supermarkets is not, sadly, necessarily as healthy as one would think. An excellent article in The Observer on October was entitled Carb crash and it said:
	If you are diabetic, beware the recommended bread, potato and pasta diet, says, Dr. John Briffa. It could drive your blood-sugar levels over the limit.
	Many of these products still contain high levels of fat, sugar and salt. I very much believe that a healthier lifestyle has to be adhered to by those who have diabetes, but a better supply of real food and drinks would go a long way to helping them with their ailment.
	The third point that I want the Minister to address is the specific issue of insulin. I have asked his colleagues a number of questions about it. More than 350,000 people have type 1 diabetes, which is treated with insulin. They can be treated with natural animal insulin or synthetic insulin. The majority of diabetics are treated with human insulin and about 30,000 diabetics use animal insulin. All insulin, whether synthetic or animal, is equally pure, but the alternative forms have different time actions and peaks of actions to suit the differing needs of diabetics. Synthetic genetically modified insulin was introduced in 1982 on the grounds that it would be a cheaper option and that the body would not produce antibodies to it. The Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust has advised me that in the years since its introduction, neither claim has been proved. However, the vast majority of diabetics have been transferred from animal insulin to synthetic insulin for no clinical reason, often without their knowledge or consent.
	The Minister will be aware that I have tabled several parliamentary questions during this Session and that I have written to Lord Warner several times about insulin, and especially the possibility of the discontinuation of animal insulin. I do not criticise the charming and helpful letter of reply that I received, but when the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will reassure diabetics who use animal insulin that they will still be able to obtain it.
	Animal insulin has been discontinued for commercial reasons in most European Union countries and many other countries throughout the world. Diabetics are effectively denied a choice of treatments and have no alternative but to use synthetic GM insulin and suffer the adverse effects.

Adrian Sanders: I do not think that there is any evidence to show that people suffer adverse effects, except those who switched from animal to GM insulin and back again.

David Amess: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is entirely right to correct the impression that I gave the HouseI left a few words out of my speech.
	In a letter dated 10 November, Lord Warner assured me that the two companies that currently supply animal insulin in the UKNovo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Ltd and CP Pharmaceuticals Ltdhad not notified the Department of Health of any intention to discontinue its production. Novo Nordisk has delayed making any decision until 2005, and CP Pharmaceuticals apparently has no plans to withdraw from the market. I hope that the Minister will reassure the many diabetics who use animal insulin that he will do everything possible to ensure that they will still have the choice of using synthetic or animal insulin. I know that Diabetes UK's stance on animal insulin is clear.
	I praise Pfizer for its ChoLESSterol campaign, which is building on the success of its 2003 programme. This year, the company is focusing on communicating with diabetics and is working closely with Diabetes UK. It is sponsoring the ChoLESSterol programme because the national service framework on coronary heart disease states that patients with diabetes should be assessed to determine their risk of CHD, and the management of cholesterol levels forms an important part of that assessment. With the introduction of general medical services contracts, which set targets for recording the processes and outcomes of cholesterol levels in patients with diabetes, general practitioner practices are given a huge incentive to address diabetes management and associated risk factors. I commend Pfizer for its initiative to help to reduce cholesterol and improve the lives of diabetics.
	I end on a local note by talking about services in Southend, as the Minister would expect. I have close links with the diabetes group in Southend and enjoy attending its regular meetings. However, its members think that the service that they currently receive is somewhat inadequate. It does not criticise the two consultants who deal with diabetes, but given that my constituency is No. 1 for the number of people aged between 100 and 111, we have more than our fair share of people who suffer from diabetes. The diabetes helpline in Southend is only open on Tuesday between 10.30 and 12.30. That is inadequate. At all other times there is a telephone answering service for members of the general public to leave a message and the diabetes nurse will return the call.
	There are very few trained diabetes nurses in Southend. Two or three practices have been lucky enough to secure the services of a trained diabetes nurse. Three are based at the hospital, but they are inundated with requests for help. I know that all the money goes through the primary care trust, but more funding is needed to enable Southend to have more specialist diabetes nurses. General practitioners want more of those nurses attached to their surgeries so that diabetes provision is available at practice level, which I am sure the Government would support, so taking the pressure off Southend hospital. The Minister should be aware that as a result of the target set by the Department of Health, general practitioners' patients are sent to the hospital, creating more pressure on hospital services. The primary care trust has advised me that it is doing its best to address the situation, but more help is urgently needed in Southend, in particular.

Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his excellent speech. He covered many of the points that the all-party group on diabetes, which I chair, is keen to hear addressed as often as possible in the presence of Ministers. Healthy eating and exercise are vital. We do not know the real cause of why people get the condition, whether at an early age or later in life, although clearly unhealthy lifestyles and obesity are contributing factors.
	A key point is that food labelling is important, and I am glad that we have the White Paper. Animal insulin should be a matter of patient choice. When patients are diagnosed and insulin is introduced to a type 2 condition, they will be put on GM insulins. I am not worried about that. I am, however, concerned that those who have always been on animal insulin are able to continue to get a source of supply.
	The all-party group will engage in an online consultation on 8 Decemberour launch dateand we hope that diabetics across the country will go on to the website to talk directly to medical professionals and politicians about how the NSF is being delivered in their area and wider diabetic issues. The Minister's Department knows about that.

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his continued interest in the issue. This is not a flash in the pan. He has been asking questions and beavering away for some time. I am grateful to him for his interest in an important subject. Equally, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for his work through the all-party group.
	I congratulate Pfizer. I am always pleased to congratulate my former employer, especially as it continues to employ 5,000 of my constituents. I am always pleased to hear nice things said about it. Its work is important. On behalf of the Government, I also congratulate Diabetes UK on its important work, and also the local diabetes networks, which have put a lot of effort into raising awareness of diabetes and supporting those who have the condition.
	It is right that we take this opportunity, which was also taken on world diabetes day, to raise awareness of a serious condition that affects many people. Diabetes is a chronic and progressive disease that has an impact on almost every aspect of life and on all age groups. People who do not suffer with diabetes often do not realise the complications that it can cause. Those complications include visual impairment and blindness; kidney damage leading to progressive renal failure; heart attack and stroke; and other conditions that can lead to further complications, including amputation of the lower limbs. Ultimately, diabetes can result in premature ill health, disability and even death and, as the hon. Member for Southend, West said, it cannot be cured. I am not aware of any research that is imminently likely to provide a cure. Research is ongoing into the best means of screening for type 2 diabetes, but I am sure that all the pharmaceutical companies are actively investigating the opportunities. The Medical Research Council is the body that would provide Government funding for general research.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, there are two main types of diabetes. Type 1 generally shows itself in younger people, although it does affect older people too. With that type of diabetes, the body cannot make any insulinthe hormone that controls the amount of sugar in the bloodso people with type 1 diabetes need insulin injections for the rest of their lives. The hon. Gentleman asked about the availability of both types of insulin, and I can give him the assurance that he sought: to the best of our knowledge, there are no plans to discontinue the production of the two types of insulin. Were we to become aware of such plans, we would, of course, express a view, and our clear view is that which type of insulin a patient receives should be a clinical decision. That decision certainly should not be controlled by commercial considerations or issues of availability. I hope that that reassures him.
	Type 2 diabetes usually appears in middle-aged or elderly people and can be developed as a result of lifestyle choices. That is why it is indeed appropriate that today, as we launch the public health White Paper, we are debating diabetes. People who are overweight are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes; it also tends to run in families and is more common in Asian and African-Caribbean communities.
	Diabetes is becoming more common across the world, and that is also true in England. About 1.4 million people in England are currently diagnosed with diabetes and as many as 1 million may have type 2 diabetes without even knowing it. The number of people with diabetes in the UK is expected to rise to 3 million by 2010. It will have a significant impact on those people's lives and that of their families. When researching for this speech, the statistic that horrified me was that diabetes is estimated to account for 5 per cent. of total NHS spendinga huge amount of money spent on a single condition.
	The challenges are mounting. Our population is made up of a complex cultural mix that is becoming more overweight, obese and inactive, so our population is also becoming more prone to diabetes. That is why we developed the national service framework for diabetes and published it in December 2001. It was developed with the help of users of the service, clinicians and managers. The NSF sets out to make best practice the norm, setting out a 10-year programme of change through 12 new national standards. The document is supported by the diabetes delivery strategy, which was published in January 2003 and which offers a framework that the NHS can use to build capacity and deliver the national targets.
	Taken together, the NSF standards and the delivery strategy will lead to fewer people developing diabetes and better care for those who have it. They will also ensure that diabetes services are centred around the needs of people with diabetes and offer care that is structured and proactive, providing people with the support and skills they need to manage their own condition, which is particularly important. Those are the first ever set of national standards for diabetes services in the NHS. They will raise the quality of services everywhere and reduce unacceptable variations. In order to stay healthy and well, every person with diabetes needs good and regular health care. We can reduce the risk of serious complications and lengthen life. This means prompt diagnosis, regular checks to identify serious complications at an early stage and treatment to control blood glucose and blood pressure levels.
	Support and education are crucial so that people can manage this complex disease effectively by themselves. Structured education and care planning are crucial tools that will enable people with diabetes to improve their knowledge and skills, supporting them to take control of their own condition and to integrate self-management into their daily lives.
	In line with that, explicit objectives of the NSF include the provision of services that enable people to manage their own diabetes through education and support that recognises the importance of lifestyle, culture and religion. There is much work being accomplished in this area. For example, Action Diabetes is a Department of Health pilot project in Slough primary care trust. It is designed to improve the lives of patients who are known to have diabetes, and to identify sooner those patients who have yet to be diagnosed. The particular focus is to reduce late diagnosis of the disease and to improve the health of the most at risk, generally Asian communities. That initiative was launched by the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), on 18 October 2004 and has already successfully identified a number of previously undiagnosed cases of diabetes.
	In Barnet, community-based education has been developed to meet the needs of the PCT's ethnic and multicultural population. Specific projects include a diabetes awareness day for the Chinese community, a bi-monthly education programme for an ethnically mixed group of patients at the multicultural centre, and a patient day organised by the PCT to promote greater awareness of diabetes, PCT services and the importance of personal responsibility for health.
	While I am talking about local initiatives, the hon. Member for Southend, West mentioned his concerns about some services in Southend. He rightly said that money is now channelled through the PCT, so it is for it to make decisions about how that money is spent. Southend PCT is doing a considerable amount of work locally to try to improve services for people who suffer from diabetes. A strategic vision for chronic disease management, including diabetes, was presented to the joint board and executive committee on 27 May 2004. There has already been a number of valuable outcomes from the work, which I am confident will improve services for people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Initiatives such as those provide services that are patient centred, equitable and appropriate to individual's needs, and they will make a real difference to the lives of people from all backgrounds, including those from ethnic minorities with diabetes.
	Good progress is already being made across a number of areas covered by the Diabetes NSF. The recent Dr. Foster report, Your Local Care, published by Diabetes UK, found that systems for service delivery are well on their way to implement the NSF on a national basis. For example, 86 per cent. of PCTs are part of a whole system diabetes network, 79 per cent. have accountability arrangements to ensure that decisions are implemented and 93 per cent. have identified a clinical lead. The diabetes delivery strategy emphasises the importance of specialist care in certain circumstancesfor example, for women during pregnancy and for those who are admitted to hospital.
	The report found that in 97 per cent. of PCTs, people with diabetes who are admitted to hospital have access to the support of a diabetes specialist team. In 98 per cent. of PCTs, women with pre-existing diabetes, and those who develop diabetes during pregnancy, have access to joint diabetes and obstetrics management. That is an increase from 91 per cent. in the past year. We recognise, however, that there is a need to continue to continue to make further progress in other areas of diabetes care if we are to succeed in the implementation of the 12 standards. The Department of Health is committed to do just that. The very first of the NSF standards also makes it clear that prevention is better than cure.
	In many cases, but not all, type 2 diabetes can be prevented or the onset delayed, especially if individuals at increased risk of developing type 2 reduce their risk by changing lifestyle, eating a balanced diet, losing weight and increasing their physical activity levels. In May this year, the Health Committee, on which the hon. Member for Southend, West servesI congratulate it on its work and on its interest in the matterreported the results of its thorough and comprehensive investigation of the issues surrounding the growing problem of obesity, which is a major risk factor in the development of type 2 diabetes. The timing of its report was fortunate, as it directly contributed to the Choosing Health? consultation, and made an important contribution to the development of the comprehensive range of proposals that we set out in today's White Paper. In July 2004, we announced a new joint public service agreement target for the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills, aiming to halt
	the year on year rise in obesity among children under 11 by 2010, in the context of a broader strategy to tackle obesity in the population as a whole.
	The public health White Paper published today pulls together a comprehensive strategy to deliver that target. One of the six priorities for action identified in the White Paper relates to reducing obesity. The White Paper recognises that obesity, both in children and adults, is increasing and poses a serious threat to our health, storing up trouble through an increase in diabetes, heart disease and cancer. It sets out practical measures to support people who want to live healthier lives. We have set out a comprehensive plan of action covering physical activity, diet, personalised support, information and curbs on marketing, thus providing a strong foundation for tackling obesity. For example, the Department of Health has commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare definitive guidance on prevention, identification, management and treatment of obesity, which is due to be available in 2007. We will also commission the production of a weight loss guide, to set out what is known about regimes for losing weight and to help people select healthy approaches that are most likely to help them to lose weight and maintain a more healthy weight. For the first time in England and Wales, evidence-based guidance will be available for children and adults on both prevention and management, ensuring a consistent evidence-based approach.
	The NHS will provide more effective services on obesity, whether in prevention, management or treatment, so that the public and patients have much better support, tailored to their individual needs, to help them achieve and maintain a healthy weight. These are concrete and practical measures that signal our commitment
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twelve minutes past Eleven o'clock.